    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF
                                     PROPOSITION 12
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 23, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-12

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                             agriculture.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-829 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
    Chairman                             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JIM COSTA, California
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice
    DON BACON, Nebraska                  Ranking Minority Member
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
    JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
    TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
    RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
    JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ADAM GRAY, California
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
    MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
    ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
    DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         JOSH RILEY, New York
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    TONY WIED, Wisconsin                 APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
    ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr.,            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
    Pennsylvania                         SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
    DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio

                                     ______

                         Parish Braden, Staff Director

                     Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
      Carolina:
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Submitted statement on behalf of Maggie Garrett, Vice
          President of Federal Affairs, American Society for the
          Prevention of Cruelty to Animals...........................   248
    Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
      submitted analysis.............................................   172
    Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
      opening statement..............................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Davis, Hon. Donald G., a Representative in Congress from North
      Carolina, submitted article....................................   250
    Feenstra, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Iowa:
        Submitted letter on behalf of Blake Edler, E 2 Farm LLC......   169
        Submitted letters............................................   170
    McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
      Massachusetts, submitted letters...............................   174
    Scott, Hon. Austin a Representative in Congress from Georgia:
        Submitted letters............................................   161
        Submitted statement..........................................   168
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
      Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
        Submitted article............................................   149
        Submitted comment............................................   150
        Submitted letters............................................   151

                                   Witnesses

    Hord, Patrick, Vice President, National Pork Producers Council;
      Chief Executive Officer, Hord Family Farms, Bucyrus, OH........     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
        Submitted questions..........................................   251
    Schuiteman, Matthew, District 3 Member, Board of Directors, Iowa
      Farm Bureau Federation; Co-Owner, AJS Farms, Sioux Center, IA..    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
        Submitted question...........................................   256
    Cook, Holly, Economist, National Pork Producers Council,
      Washington, D.C................................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Cushman, Travis, Deputy General Counsel, Litigation and Public
      Policy, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D.C.......    29
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Rocha, Lilly, Executive Director, Latino Restaurant Association,
      Los Angeles, CA................................................    36
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Lashmet, J.D., Tiffany Dowell, Professor and Extension
      Specialist, Agricultural Law, AgriLife Extension, Department of
      Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Life
      Sciences, Texas A&M University, Amarillo, TX...................    41
        Prepared statement...........................................    43

              AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSITION 12

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2025

                              House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
    1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Austin
    Scott of Georgia, LaMalfa, Bacon, Johnson, Baird, Mann,
    Feenstra, Miller, Moore, Finstad, Jackson of Texas, De La Cruz,
    Nunn, Wied, Messmer, Harris, Taylor, Craig, David Scott of
    Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams, Brown, Davids of Kansas, Davis
    of North Carolina, Budzinski, Sorensen, Thanedar, McDonald
    Rivet, Figures, and Carbajal.
        Staff present: Justin Benavidez, Parish Braden, Luke
    Franklin, Justina Graff, Harlea Hoelscher, Sofia Jones,
    Patricia Straughn, Trevor White, Suzie Cavalier, Daniel
    Feingold, Clark Ogilvie, and Jackson Blodgett.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                       CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome,
    and thank you for joining today's hearing entitled, An
    Examination of the Implications of Proposition 12.
        After brief opening remarks, Members will receive testimony
    from our witnesses today, and then the hearing will be open to
    questions.
        So good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us
    today for this important hearing to examine the implication of
    California's Proposition 12.
        To each of our witnesses, thank you for taking time out of
    your busy schedule to share your expertise with us.
        In 2018, California passed Proposition 12, a law that
    imposes arbitrary and unscientific housing standards on any
    pork, veal, or egg products that a producer may wish to sell
    into the state. Backed by animal rights activists, the
    requirements of Prop 12 have no standing in reality and do
    nothing to improve animal welfare, food safety, or food
    affordability. In fact, California's Department of Food and
    Agriculture noted in their rulemaking that: ``animal
    confinement space allowances prescribed in the Act are not
    based in specific peer-reviewed published scientific literature
    or accepted as standards within the scientific community to
    reduce human foodborne illnesses, promote worker safety, the
    environment, or other human or safety concerns.''
        Similarly, the American Veterinary Medical Association
    opposes Prop 12, stating the arbitrary housing requirements do
    not objectively improve animal welfare and may unintentionally
    cause harm.
        Such concerns, along with compliance costs for producers
    and consumers alike, led Prop 12 all the way to the Supreme
    Court of the United States. After years of litigation, the
    United States Supreme Court ultimately upheld California's law.
    Importantly, Justice Gorsuch noted several times in a majority
    opinion that Congress would be well within its power to act in
    this case.
        I disagree with the Court's decision to uphold Prop 12, but
    I do agree that Congress can and must act to rectify the
    burdens of Prop 12 as imposed on interstate commerce.
        I am submitting for the record a letter from the Secretary
    of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, that outlines the economic
    impacts that we have seen since Prop 12 went into effect on
    January 1, 2024. So without objection, that letter is entered
    into the record.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 157.]
        The Chairman. The letter highlights many concerning
    economic realities that our producers and consumers are facing
    in a post-Prop 12 world. The average cost of retrofitting or
    rebuilding facilities to meet Prop 12 standards is estimated at
    $3,500 to $4,500 per sow. The same data shows that compliance
    costs disproportionately affect small- and mid-sized producers
    who face tighter margins and have less access to capital. In
    fact, as of the first quarter of 2025, 12 percent of small pork
    operations have exited the market or shifted production away
    from breeding, citing regulatory uncertainty and high
    transition costs.
        On the consumer side, retail pork prices in California have
    increased by 18.7 percent year over year, compared to a 6.3
    percent increase nationwide over the same period. A recent USDA
    consumer affordability study found that low-income households
    in California reduced pork purchases by 22 percent, indicating
    price increases are affecting food access and affordability for
    economically vulnerable populations. The data shows that both
    producers and consumers are facing significant cost increases
    due to Prop 12. It begs the question, if producers are paying
    more and consumers are paying more, who is winning?
        Thankfully, the complexity and unfairness of Prop 12 has
    been realized by both sides of the aisle. Former Secretary of
    Agriculture Tom Vilsack testified before this Committee about
    the harms of Prop 12, stating there would be ``chaos in the
    marketplace'' without a fix. Our current Secretary of
    Agriculture Brooke Rollins also thinks that we must act and
    offered her full support for our efforts. She stated,
    ``California has the right to do what California wants to do,
    but the minute that crosses the border and starts to compromise
    in such a significant way our pork producers, we need to act.''
        That is why I introduced section 12007 in the Farm, Food,
    and National Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467). This provision
    is a commonsense, middle-ground approach to protect consumers
    from arbitrary and unscientific mandates. It does not undo
    thousands of state-based agriculture laws, and it does not
    restrict a state's right to impose standards within their own
    borders. It simply clarifies that states cannot impose, as a
    condition for sale or consumption, a production standard on
    livestock unless that livestock is located within the state's
    borders. This means that Prop 12 will stand in California, but
    only for those producers within California's borders. Similar
    state mandates, like Question 3 in Massachusetts, will also
    stand, but again, only for the producers within their borders.
        Section 12007 enjoys the support of the National Pork
    Producers Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and
    over 900 more national, state, and local farm organizations, as
    well as the AVMA.
        Despite this support from the agriculture community, false
    narratives about section 12007 continue to be told in D.C. and
    across the countryside. Driven by animal rights groups who are
    parading as farmers and ranchers, I have heard every accusation
    possible, from China somehow gaining access to our farmland to
    thousands of state laws being overturned. Neither of these
    carries any weight. While false, the China argument is a
    convenient strawman during a time of heightened scrutiny of
    China's investments in the United States. The truth is that
    protein conglomerates with foreign ownership have the resources
    to comply with state-by-state mandates, while small family
    farmers and ranchers do not. The cost of compliance for small
    producers could actually push them out of the market
    altogether, leading to further consolidation in the industry,
    and that would be a true gift to China.
        As we hear from our witnesses today, it is my hope that we
    all take to heart what they are saying. From producers on the
    ground to the economic and legal experts who have watched this
    unfold, to the consumer advocate who sees higher prices every
    day in California, it is paramount that we take their concerns
    seriously. In order to protect the right of American farmers
    and ranchers to raise their animals how they see fit, we must
    provide a fix for Proposition 12.
        And I am proud of the work we did to get section 12007,
    which passed out of Committee last year with a bipartisan vote.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this
    provision in the upcoming farm bill reauthorization.
        Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today. We
    look forward to hearing from you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
        Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us at today's
    important hearing to examine the implications of California's
    Proposition 12.
        To each of our witnesses, thank you for taking time out of your
    busy schedule to share your expertise with us.
        In 2018, California passed Proposition 12, a law that imposes
    arbitrary and unscientific housing standards on any pork, veal, or egg
    products that a producer may wish to sell into the state.
        Backed by animal rights activists, the requirements of Prop 12 have
    no standing in reality, and do nothing to improve animal welfare, food
    safety, or food affordability.
        In fact, California's Department of Food and Agriculture noted in
    their rulemaking that ``animal confinement space allowances prescribed
    in the Act are not based in specific peer-reviewed published scientific
    literature or accepted as standards within the scientific community to
    reduce human foodborne illness, promote worker safety, the environment,
    or other human or safety concerns.''
        Similarly, the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes Prop
    12, stating the arbitrary housing requirements do not objectively
    improve animal welfare and may unintentionally cause harm.
        Such concerns, along with the compliance costs for producers and
    consumers alike, led Prop 12 all the way to the Supreme Court of the
    United States.
        After years of litigation, the United States Supreme Court
    ultimately upheld California's law.
        Importantly, Justice Gorsuch noted several times in the majority
    opinion that Congress would be well within its power to act in this
    case.
        I disagree with the Court's decision to uphold Prop 12, but I do
    agree that Congress can and must act to rectify the burdens Prop 12 has
    imposed on interstate commerce.
        I am submitting for the record a letter from Secretary of
    Agriculture Brooke Rollins that outlines the economic impacts we have
    seen since Prop 12 went into effect on January 1, 2024.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Editor's note: the letter referred to is located on p. 157.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The letter highlights many concerning economic realities that our
    producers and consumers are facing in a post-Prop 12 world.
        The average cost of retrofitting or rebuilding facilities to meet
    Prop 12 standards is estimated at $3,500 to $4,500 per sow.
        The same data shows that compliance costs disproportionately affect
    small- and mid-sized producers, who face tighter margins and have less
    access to capital.
        In fact, as of the first quarter of 2025, 12 percent of small pork
    operations have exited the market or shifted production away from
    breeding, citing regulatory uncertainty and high transition costs.
        On the consumer side, retail pork prices in California have
    increased by 18.7 percent year-over-year, compared to a 6.3 percent
    increase nationwide over the same period.
        A recent USDA consumer affordability study found that low-income
    households in California reduced pork purchases by 22 percent,
    indicating price increases are affecting food access and affordability
    for economically vulnerable populations.
        The data shows that both producers and consumers are facing
    significant cost increases due to Prop 12.
        It begs the question--if producers are paying more, and consumers
    are paying more, who is winning?
        Thankfully, the complexity and unfairness of Prop 12 has been
    realized by both sides of the aisle.
        Former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack testified before this
    Committee about the harms of Prop 12, stating there would be ``chaos in
    the marketplace'' without a fix.
        Our current Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins also thinks
    that we must act and offered her full support for our efforts.
        She stated that ``California has the right to do what California
    wants to do, but the minute that crosses the border and starts to
    compromise in such a significant way our pork producers, we need to
    act.''
        That's why I included Section 12007 in the Farm, Food, and National
    Security Act of 2024.
        This provision is a common-sense, middle-ground approach to protect
    producers from arbitrary and unscientific mandates.
        It does not undo thousands of state-based agricultural laws, and it
    does not restrict a states' right to impose standards within their own
    borders.
        It simply clarifies that states cannot impose, as a condition for
    sale or consumption, a production standard on livestock, unless that
    livestock is located within the states' borders.
        This means that Prop 12 will stand in California, but only for
    those producers within California's borders. Similar state mandates,
    like Question 3 in Massachusetts, will also stand--but again, only for
    those producers within their borders.
        Section 12007 enjoys the support of the National Pork Producers
    Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, and over 900 more national,
    state, and local farm organizations, as well as the AVMA.
        Despite this support from the agriculture community, false
    narratives about Section 12007 continue to be told in D.C. and across
    the countryside.
        Driven by animal rights groups who are parading as farmers and
    ranchers, I've heard every accusation possible, from China somehow
    gaining access to our farmland to thousands of state laws being
    overturned.
        Neither of these carry any weight.
        While false, the China argument is a convenient strawman during a
    time of heightened scrutiny of China's investments in the United
    States.
        The truth is that protein conglomerates with foreign ownership have
    the resources to comply with state-by-state mandates, while small
    family farmers and ranchers do not.
        The cost of compliance for small producers could actually push them
    out of the market altogether, leading to further consolidation in the
    industry, and that would be the true gift to China.
        As we hear from our witnesses today, it is my hope that we all take
    to heart what they are saying.
        From the producers on the ground, to the economic and legal experts
    who have watched this unfold, to the consumer advocate who sees higher
    prices every day in California, it is paramount that we take their
    concerns seriously.
        In order to protect the right of American farmers and ranchers to
    raise their animals how they see fit, we must provide a fix for
    Proposition 12.
        I am proud of the work we did to get to Section 12007, which passed
    out of Committee last year with a bipartisan vote.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this
    provision in the upcoming farm bill reauthorization.
        Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today. We look
    forward to hearing from you.
        With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for any opening comments
    she'd like to make.

        The Chairman. And with that, I yield to the distinguished
    gentlelady from Minnesota, the Ranking Member of the
    Agriculture Committee, for any opening comments that she would
    like to make.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                        CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
    everyone.
        I am proud to say that Minnesota ranks second in the
    country for hog production, with over 3,000 pig farms operating
    in the state. As such, I am intensely familiar with the subject
    of today's hearing and have heard from producers on both sides
    of the issue.
        Like most controversial cases, it is not really that
    simple. Today's topic has been litigated extensively since I
    first came to Congress. Since California residents voted to
    enact Proposition 12 in 2018, we have seen challenges to the
    law, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the law, numerous
    proposals, and attempts to negate the law through Federal
    legislation, and now, a hearing regarding where we go from
    here.
        Prop 12 is clearly a contentious issue, and it merits
    thoughtful, bipartisan discussion. Even today, this very day, I
    have seen two different letters citing two different sets of
    data that come to different conclusions about pork prices in
    California. Any true representative of farm country knows that
    Prop 12 is a concern for producers on both sides of the issue.
        We can't ignore the questions and challenges Prop 12
    raises. Even the Biden Administration's Agriculture Secretary
    said we need to treat this issue seriously to ensure stability
    in the marketplace. I agree that we can't have 50 states with
    50 different regulatory frameworks because of the significant
    challenges it would present to producers. But I also believe
    that there are ways to avoid that situation.
        I also recognize that many pork producers have made
    significant financial investments to make their operations Prop
    12-compliant to satisfy the desires of California's consumers
    for premium pork products. It would be unfair to the family
    farmers who updated their facilities to comply with new rules
    to keep or gain market access to change the rules on them after
    they have already made those investments.
        I think Congress also needs to be mindful of the voters in
    California who exercised their rights under the state
    constitution to adopt this policy. We should think carefully
    before allowing legislators in Washington to override their
    will.
        While I welcome more attention to this topic, there are
    additional threats to the livestock sector happening right now
    that also deserve this Committee's focus. This Administration's
    worldwide trade war could hurt our domestic livestock industry.
    We export 30 percent of the pork we produce, and hogs are
    constantly moving back and forth across our border with Canada.
        But today, packers are being forced to render hogs that
    normally would have been exported. We haven't gained new market
    access to replace the lost Chinese market, which took a hit
    during the COVID-era supply chain chaos, and then shrank
    further after China canceled 12,000 metric tons of U.S. pork
    imports in retaliation against President Trump's first trade
    war.
        At the same time, there is ongoing labor shortage for hog
    farms and meat processors that is being exacerbated by the
    Administration's chaotic and volatile mass deportation program.
    The Administration is eliminating large portions of the
    meatpacking workforce, which will affect hog prices when
    packers can't operate facilities at full capacity. Just the
    other week, 200 legal workers at a JBS plant in Iowa had their
    visas revoked and are now being deported. Congress can work on
    solutions to revitalize and strengthen the agricultural
    guestworker program, but common sense needs to prevail.
        I am hopeful that this Prop 12 hearing will give us some
    new ideas to work with and possibly yield a viable path forward
    for all of our nation's hog farmers. I am also hopeful that the
    Majority, during any farm bill discussions that might occur,
    will be open to new ideas.
        I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. I
    look forward to hearing from them.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
                                 from Minnesota
        Good morning.
        I am proud to say that Minnesota ranks second in the country for
    hog production, with over 3,000 pig farms operating in the state. As
    such, I am familiar with the subject of today's hearing and have heard
    from producers on both sides. Like most controversial cases, it's not
    so simple.
        Today's topic has been litigated extensively since I first came to
    Congress. Since California residents voted to enact Proposition 12 in
    2018, we've seen challenges to the law, the Supreme Court ruling in
    favor of the law, numerous proposals and attempts to negate the law
    through Federal legislation, and now a hearing regarding where we go
    from here.
        Prop 12 is clearly a contentious issue, and it merits thoughtful,
    bipartisan discussion. Even today, I've seen two different letters
    citing two sets of data that come to two different conclusions about
    pork prices in California. Any true representative of farm country
    knows that Prop 12 is a concern for producers on both sides.
        We cannot ignore the questions and challenges Prop 12 raises. Even
    the Biden Administration's Agriculture Secretary said we need to treat
    this issue seriously to ensure stability in the marketplace. I agree
    that we cannot have 50 states with 50 different regulatory frameworks
    because of the significant challenges it would present to producers,
    but I believe that there are ways to avoid that situation.
        I also recognize that many pork producers have made significant
    financial investments to make their operations Prop 12-compliant to
    satisfy the desires of California's consumers for premium pork
    products. It would be unfair to the family farmers who updated their
    facilities to comply with new rules to keep or gain market access, to
    change the rules on them after they've already made these investments.
        I think Congress also needs to be mindful of the voters in
    California who exercised their rights under their state constitution to
    adopt this policy. We should think carefully before allowing
    legislators in Washington to override their will.
        While I welcome more attention to this topic, there are additional
    threats to the livestock sector happening right now that also deserve
    this Committee's focus. This Administration's worldwide trade war could
    hurt our domestic livestock industry.
        We export 30 percent of the pork we produce, and hogs are
    constantly moving back and forth across our border with Canada. But
    today, packers are being forced to render hogs that normally would've
    been exported. We haven't gained new market access to replace the lost
    Chinese market, which took a hit during the COVID-era supply chain
    chaos, and then shrank further after China canceled 12,000 metric tons
    of U.S. pork imports in retaliation against President Trump's tariffs.
        At the same time, there is an ongoing labor shortage for hog farms
    and meat processors that is being exacerbated by the Administration's
    chaotic and volatile mass deportation program.
        The Administration is eliminating large portions of the meat-
    packing workforce, which will affect hog prices when packers can't
    operate facilities at full capacity.
        Just the other week, 200 legal workers at a JBS plant in Iowa had
    their visas revoked and are being deported.
        Congress can work on solutions to revitalize and strengthen the
    agricultural guestworker program, but common sense needs to prevail.
        I am hopeful that this Prop 12 hearing will give us some new ideas
    to work with and possibly yield a viable path forward for all of our
    nation's hog farmers. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony
    today, and I look forward to hearing from them.
        I yield back.

        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
        The chair would request that other Members submit their
    opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
    their testimony to ensure that there is ample time for
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Adams follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
                              from North Carolina
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to begin by clearly stating why we are gathered today.
    Several Members of this Committee have emphasized that it is
    ``imperative'' to include a provision in a future farm bill that
    preempts California's Proposition 12 and similar state laws.
        Proposition 12 aims to improve the welfare of these animals by
    mandating minimum space requirements and prohibiting extreme
    confinement practices.
        And while the National Pork Producers' Council sued to overturn
    Proposition 12 after it passed in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023
    that it is within California's right to regulate the sale of
    agricultural products within its borders. The pork industry brought an
    additional case to the Supreme Court, and the Court refused to hear the
    case last month.
        This is not the case of California imposing its standards upon
    other states; producers are free to choose whether to serve particular
    markets or to separate production for different regulatory
    environments.
        Compliance with Proposition 12 is entirely voluntary. There are 49
    other states to which farmers can sell products if they do not wish to
    meet these standards. Proposition 12 is not a mandate, but an
    opportunity for farmers to sell a higher-welfare product.
        California's Proposition 12 has established new market
    opportunities for farmers. A growing number of consumers are demanding
    more humane animal products, both within and outside of California, and
    Proposition 12 helps meet this demand. In fact, 80% of Americans are
    concerned about the negative impacts of industrial animal agriculture
    on animal welfare and 80% support bans on the confinement of farm
    animals.
        To suddenly mandate a reversal of this law would create significant
    instability within the agricultural sector and would be harmful for
    those farmers who have invested heavily to comply with California's
    standards. In fact, more than 200 family farms in North Carolina have
    expressed opposition to overturning state and local farm animal welfare
    laws.
        But we see efforts outside of this Committee trying to do the same
    thing. In fact, the House Republican Appropriations bill proposal
    includes language that is designed to open the door to preempting
    Proposition 12 in the future.
        I am surprised that there is a strong stance to preempt Proposition
    12 when there is bipartisan opposition to any legislation that would
    overturn Proposition 12 and other similar state laws.
        Ultimately, it has been made clear--the Supreme Court rules that
    states are within their right to regulate the sale of agricultural
    products within its borders, and farmers have already made the
    necessary arrangements to voluntarily comply with the standards.
    Reverting back when there is consumer demand for the product, and
    bipartisan support to uphold Proposition 12, would simply make no
    sense.
        I yield back.

        The Chairman. Our first witness today is Mr. Patrick Hord,
    who is the CEO of Hord Family Farms, a fifth-generation family
    farming operation located in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and
    surrounding states. They raise approximately 8,500 acres of
    corn, soybeans, wheat, and hay, as well as care for 47,000 sows
    and pigs from birth to market. They also feed approximately
    1,200 beef cattle per year, operate three grain elevators,
    employ 350 team members, and partner with over 200 farmer swine
    growers. Mr. Hord also serves as Vice President of the National
    Pork Producers Council Board of Directors.
        Our next witness is Mr. Matt Schuiteman, a pig farmer and
    Board Member with the Iowa Farm Bureau. He lives and farms with
    his wife, Mindy, and their seven children near Sioux Center in
    Sioux County, Iowa.
        Our third witness today is Ms. Holly Cook, who is an
    economist at the National Pork Producers Council. Ms. Cook
    collects and analyzes data for the pork industry and conducts
    research on the impact of proposed policies and regulations on
    the pork industry. She grew up on a farrow-to-finish farm
    operation in Winthrop, Iowa.
        Our next witness is Mr. Travis Cushman, the Deputy General
    Counsel for Litigation and Public Policy at the American Farm
    Bureau Federation. He has spent the better part of 4 years
    examining the negative effects of California's Proposition 12
    and helped elevate the issue to the Supreme Court.
        Our fifth witness today is Ms. Lilly Rocha, the Executive
    Director of the Latino Restaurant Association, an 800+ member
    national organization based in Los Angeles, California. And she
    is also the founder of Latino Food Industry Trade Show, the
    nation's largest Latin food trade show.
        I now yield to our Ranking Member, Ms. Craig, to introduce
    our next witness.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you. Tiffany Dowell Lashmet is a Professor
    and Extension Specialist in Agriculture Law. She is located in
    the Department of Agriculture Economics at Texas A&M
    University.
        Tiffany grew up on a family farm and ranch in northeastern
    New Mexico, where her family raised sheep, cattle, alfalfa,
    wheat, and milo. Tiffany has a BS in agribusiness farm and
    ranch management from Oklahoma State University and a juris
    doctorate from the University of New Mexico School of Law.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Thank you all for joining us today. We are now going to
    proceed to your testimony. You will each have 5 minutes. The
    timer in front of you will count down to zero at which point
    your time has expired.
        Mr. Hord, please begin when you are ready.

       STATEMENT OF PATRICK HORD, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PORK
    PRODUCERS COUNCIL; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HORD FAMILY FARMS,
                              BUCYRUS, OH

        Mr. Hord. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
    Craig, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    invitation to testify. My name is Pat Hord, and I am a fourth-
    generation pork producer from Bucyrus, Ohio.
        Our farm's legacy stretches back to 1905, when my great-
    grandfather purchased a track of land in north-central Ohio. My
    wife, Janel, and I carry on that legacy by caring for our pigs
    from birth to market. We have been blessed to farm row crops
    and livestock across a number of states, and importantly for
    today's discussion, we produce pork compliant with California
    Prop 12.
        I serve as the Vice President of the National Pork
    Producers Council. We represent the interests of America's more
    than 60,000 pork producers. Our industry supports over 573,000
    U.S. jobs and adds about $63 billion to the nation's GDP.
        Despite producing Prop 12-compliant pork, I am here to say
    that Prop 12 and an unmitigated regulatory patchwork threatens
    our farm. Prop 12 makes it a crime in California to sell
    uncooked whole pork meat from the offspring of sows that aren't
    raised according to the state's arbitrary housing standards.
    Meatpackers and retailers will not stop selling to California's
    40 million residents, which means producers across the country
    have needed to comply with California's mandate.
        Proponents of Prop 12 claim the measure was designed to
    improve animal welfare. However, welfare is a complex issue.
    Every style of housing, including group pens, which are
    functionally required by Prop 12, come with challenges. Last
    year, supporting the preemption of Prop 12, the American
    Veterinary Medical Association stated the arbitrary housing
    requirements in Prop 12 do not objectively improve animal
    welfare and may unintentionally cause harm.
        Larger farms tend to have access to sufficient capital to
    diversify and absorb Prop 12's cost burdens, but smaller farms
    find it difficult to obtain the capital and undertake the
    associated risks.
        Regardless of size, all farms have or will continue to
    experience productivity losses under Prop 12. You simply cannot
    house the same number of sows in the same size barn. Prop 12-
    compliant housing is inherently less efficient.
        The existential challenge of Prop 12 is a patchwork of
    differing regulations across the country. It creates
    uncertainty around what design we need to use for our new barns
    and even how I decide what to do when an existing barn needs
    remodeling. Whatever I do today could need to be changed when a
    new state decides they want a different housing standard. These
    are expensive changes, and some farmers may exit the business
    amid this uncertainty, which increases consolidation.
        NPPC fought to stop California from regulating farms
    outside of its borders, filing suit against Prop 12 and taking
    the case to the Supreme Court. The lawsuit raised important
    legal questions around federalism, the relationship between
    states, and the power of individual states to regulate out-of-
    state businesses. The Court made it clear Congress can and
    should fix Prop 12.
        There is strong bipartisan opposition to Prop 12. The Biden
    Administration argued against it before the Supreme Court, and
    the Trump Administration recently filed suit against Prop 12
    over its impacts on egg prices, arguing it unnecessarily
    increases the cost of food and food production by manipulating
    interstate commerce.
        Prop 12 isn't only a domestic problem. It applies to and
    greatly concerns our trading partners. The Canadian Government,
    for example, is analyzing the effects of Prop 12 and
    considering the U.S. obligations under the USMCA and the WTO.
        To summarize, Prop 12's housing standards were developed
    without the input of hog farmers, veterinarians, or food safety
    experts. Prop 12 does not objectively improve animal welfare
    and leaves the industry vulnerable to the uncertainty of a 50
    state patchwork. NPPC urges Congress to fix Prop 12. We ask
    that you support Chairman Thompson's efforts to rein in the
    state's attempt to regulate interstate commerce, restore the
    sovereignty of states to deal with their own businesses, and
    abide by our internal obligations.
        I am happy to answer any of your questions today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hord follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Patrick Hord, Vice President, National Pork
    Producers Council; Chief Executive Officer, Hord Family Farms, Bucyrus,
                                       OH
    Introduction
        The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) represents 42 affiliated
    state associations, working together to ensure the U.S. pork industry
    remains a consistent and responsible supplier of high-quality pork to
    domestic and international markets. Through public policy outreach,
    NPPC fights for reasonable legislation and regulations, develops
    revenue and market opportunities, and protects the livelihoods of
    America's more than 60,000 pork producers.
        The U.S. pork industry serves as a major contributor to the
    agricultural and overall U.S. economies. In 2023, U.S. pork producers
    marketed more than 149 million hogs valued at over $27 billion while
    supporting more than 573,000 U.S. jobs and supplying consumers with
    nutritional products that are raised safely and humanely. The U.S. is
    also a global supplier of pork, with exports accounting for about a
    quarter of annual pork production and supporting more than 140,000 U.S.
    jobs. Last year, the U.S. pork industry exported more than $8.6 billion
    of product to more than 100 countries.
        The pork industry used roughly 1.7 billion bushels of corn and the
    soybean meal from 462 million bushels of soybeans in 2023. It also used
    about 40 billion pounds of other feed ingredients, including distillers
    dried grains with solubles (DDGS), a major byproduct of corn ethanol
    production.
    California Proposition 12
        The successes of the U.S. pork industry are particularly impressive
    given the challenges--weather, diseases, labor shortages--producers
    face to put safe and accessible food on American tables. One of the
    most significant hurdles the U.S. pork industry continues to face is
    California's Proposition 12, a challenge compounded by the reality that
    other states have followed suit with efforts to mandate entirely
    different production standards for pig farms. The risk of a balkanized
    patchwork of varied state regulations is causing chaos in the pork
    industry and threatens to cause long-term fundamental harm to the
    foundation of the United States economic system.
        Approved in 2018 through a state ballot initiative, Proposition 12
    makes it a civil and criminal offense to engage in the commercial sale
    within the state of California of uncooked whole pork meat derived from
    the offspring of sows that are not raised according to California's
    prescriptive, arbitrary, and unscientific animal housing standards.
        Pork producers who want to sell their product in California must
    provide their sows a minimum of 24 square feet of space. That compares
    with an industry average of 18-20 square feet per sow. Proposition 12
    also prohibits the use of breeding pens, which allow sows to recover in
    the days following delivery and nursing of piglets. Those pens also
    greatly reduce aggression and fighting among sows.
        Despite claims by its proponents that the initiative would improve
    sow welfare, in drafting Proposition 12 implementing regulations, the
    California Department of Food and Agriculture admitted the loss of
    breeding pens would result in significant increases in animal mortality
    and reduced litter sizes because of aggression among sows. Like other
    animals, sows in groups develop a pecking order, often fighting to
    determine their rank.
        Group pens, which are functionally required by Proposition 12,
    place multiple sows together in a single pen. Group pens have the
    potential to increase pregnancy losses, lengthen recovery from weaning,
    and heighten risks for sow injury and death. In fact, Proposition 12 is
    opposed by both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and
    the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV).
        In a letter \1\ to this Committee supporting the preemption of
    Prop. 12 in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024, the AVMA
    wrote, ``Because no one husbandry style is appropriate for all
    circumstances, regulations aimed at improving animal welfare should be
    based upon scientific evidence and the professional judgement of
    veterinarians. The arbitrary housing requirements in Prop 12 do not
    objectively improve animal welfare and may unintentionally cause
    harm.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://nppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/
    AVMA.2024FBSupportLetter.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a separate letter,\2\ the AASV wrote, ``A well-established body
    of scientific literature assessing biological metrics of sow welfare in
    individual stalls and group pens shows that both housing methods can be
    important tools in managing a healthy herd. Categorically banning one
    of them, as Proposition 12 does, will likely harm rather than improve
    animal well-being,'' and that, ``Without a solution, veterinarians will
    be restricted in their options to maximize animal welfare based on a
    herd's specific needs.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://nppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/AASV-letter-Farm-
    Bill-Prop-12.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, Proposition 12 does not enhance food safety, contrary
    to proponents' claims when the measure was presented to voters. There
    is no evidence that housing sows in individual gestation pens increases
    the risk of disease spreading from the sows' offspring to humans.
    Likewise, there is no evidence that disease prevalence in mature
    slaughter pigs has any relationship to whether their mothers were
    housed in groups or individual pens. Each farm mitigates food safety
    risks through veterinarian-established herd health plans, as well as
    separating market pigs from other populations. There is no correlation
    between the housing of sows and food safety risks.
        The CDFA acknowledged that Proposition 12's space requirements are
    not based on peer-reviewed science or accepted as standard in the
    scientific community to reduce human-borne illness.
    Cost to Pork Producers
        The pork industry is complex, vertically segmented, and
    specifically designed to produce high-quality, affordable meat in a
    safe and efficient manner, with cuts from a single pig sold across the
    country. This means retailers, distributors, and packers, who would
    bear the consequences for violating Proposition 12, will incur
    significant costs when supplying pork products to the California
    market. And, despite not every product being covered by Proposition 12,
    the entire hog must be raised in a compliant manner, adding even more
    to the price that must be received on covered pork products to offset
    compliance costs. Without Congressional intervention, the industry is
    left vulnerable to a regulatory patchwork that fractures the national
    pork market based on arbitrary and costly state-by-state requirements.
        Pork producers throughout the country have already collectively
    spent hundreds of millions of dollars converting existing structures or
    building new barns to continue selling pork in California.
        Recent estimates show that new construction of Proposition 12
    compliant barns can cost at least 15-20% more per sow than standard
    open pen gestation systems. Retrofitting existing barns, though highly
    dependent on the starting point of the barn, could cost at least $100
    per sow to provide the required square footage. This approach is also
    associated with at least a 30 percent reduction in throughput because
    of fewer sows and likely productivity impacts. To maintain their sow
    herd, there are also added higher operating expenses for things such as
    utilities, veterinary care, labor, and other costs.
        While some farms, mostly larger ones, have access to sufficient
    capital to amortize and absorb the cost burden, smaller and independent
    producers have limited access to capital and cannot easily cover
    Proposition 12's costs. Moreover, the farms that make the effort to
    comply with Proposition 12 likely will experience losses in
    productivity, which exacerbates the challenges created by the costs
    associated with increasing square footage required by the initiative.
    Increased costs and risk will force further consolidation of the pork
    industry, reducing competition to the detriment of consumers
    nationwide.
        Proposition 12 also requires that pork producers pay for and
    certify--through third-party audits--that their sow barns comply with
    the initiative's space requirements. This inspection and certification
    regime, in addition to being expensive and burdensome, could also
    interfere with farms' operations and biosecurity measures.
    Efforts to Fix Proposition 12
        Proposition 12 was challenged in the court system by NPPC and the
    American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), with dozens of other
    agricultural organizations and states filing briefs in support. While
    the lawsuit centered on pork production, its implications were far
    greater and raised a host of important legal questions around
    federalism, the relationships between states, and the sovereign power
    of individual states to assert sole jurisdiction over the operation and
    regulation of their businesses.
        The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that by regulating
    farms outside its borders, California violated the Constitution's
    ``dormant commerce clause,'' which prevents economic discrimination and
    protectionism but also stops states from ``imped[ing] substantially the
    free flow of commerce from state to state.''
        Subsequently, the Iowa Pork Producers Association (IPPA), an
    affiliate of NPPC, challenged Proposition 12 in the courts based on
    arguments not made in the NPPC-AFBF case. In appealing lower court
    decisions against its suit, IPPA said allowing Proposition 12 to stand
    ``would implicitly endorse an individual state's regulation of an out-
    of-state industry based on the state's own sense of what is `moral.'
    It's difficult to see where that road ends.''
        The organization pointed out that while its case involves pork,
    others could involve any good or service imaginable and would
    incentivize tit-for-tat trade wars among the states.
        ``If issues of `morality' can drive the regulation of out-of-state
    industry,'' IPPA argued in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, ``why
    couldn't future regulation be based on minimum wage policies of sister
    states, or employees' immigration status, or any other hot-button
    social issue of the day?''
        ``The framers [of the Constitution] prohibited precisely this type
    of discriminatory and overly onerous out-of-state regulation.''
        In fact, such extraterritoriality--the legal concept that a state's
    laws can apply to people or actions outside its borders--was addressed
    in the design of the Constitution. A state law that has the practical
    effect of regulating wholly out-of-state commerce is invalid,
    regardless of whether it also regulates in-state commerce. The
    practical effect of Proposition 12 is that commercial pork activity
    outside of California needs to comply with that state's regulations,
    making the initiative an extraterritorial regulation of the $27 billion
    interstate pork market.
        Some supporters of Proposition 12 argue that this practical effect
    doctrine is limitless and could invalidate a wide range of laws. But
    the extraterritoriality principle comes into play only when a state law
    has the practical effect of controlling transactions that occur
    entirely outside the enacting state, imposing the enacting state's
    policies on residents of other states and usurping the sovereign power
    of the other states.
        The practical effect of Proposition 12 is a ban on the use of
    individual pens by pork producers outside of California. In-state sow
    producers already were prohibited from using individual pens by
    Proposition 2, a 2008 ballot initiative that took effect in 2015
    (nearly all of California's sow operations--about 100,000 animals--
    moved out of the state following passage of Proposition 2). This means
    Proposition 12 wholly regulates out-of-state pork production.
        There is nothing incidental about Proposition 12's extraterritorial
    effect. It applies to sows across the country, 99.9 percent of which
    are raised outside of California, and interferes almost entirely with
    out-of-state contracts. Essentially, there is no sow industry in
    California where sow farms cannot meet land use and environmental
    requirements or bear the cost of doing business.
        California keeps pork production out but imposes costly measures on
    pork producers in other states. It does so despite having no valid
    interest in other states' animal husbandry practices or policies. To
    attach restrictions to the sale in California of out-of-state pork
    based on concerns for animals raised in other states extends
    California's police power beyond its jurisdictional bounds.
        The Trump Administration is picking up where the Biden
    Administration left off in challenging the effects on interstate
    commerce of Proposition 12. On July 9, 2025, the Department of Justice
    filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
    California over the impacts that Proposition 12, as well as 2008's
    Proposition 2, have had on the national market for eggs and egg
    products. While the lawsuit does not impact pork products, NPPC agrees
    with the Department of Justice that Proposition 12, and laws like it,
    unnecessarily increase the cost of food and food production by
    manipulating interstate commerce without improving animal welfare.
        Unlike laws and regulations directed at harm to in-state persons or
    property, philosophical objections to out-of-state policies on wages,
    investors, or animal welfare are not legitimate local interests.
    Measures such as Proposition 12 impose substantial burdens on
    interstate commerce that outweigh a state's negligible local benefits.
        Taken as a whole, the negative effects of Proposition 12 far
    outweigh California's minor interests.
    Harm to Producers and Consumers
        Proposition 12 is disadvantaging family pork producers across the
    country by requiring compliance with expensive and arbitrary production
    standards--or losing access to the country's largest pork market.
    Meanwhile, consumers in California already are experiencing
    significantly higher pork prices as a direct result of Proposition 12.
        With nearly 40 million residents, California represents 12 percent
    of the U.S. population and an estimated 13 percent of the domestic pork
    market. The state has large Asian, Black, and Latino populations, all
    of which have longstanding cultural preferences for pork. Despite being
    such a large market for pork, California accounts for less than 0.1
    percent of U.S. pork production and, as referenced above, is dependent
    on farms located outside its borders to feed its residents.
    Approximately 700,000 sows are needed to supply California with the
    product mix it routinely consumes; the state has only about 6,000 sows
    on commercial farms.
        A 2024 report \3\ by economists with the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's Office of the Chief Economist found that after
    Proposition 12 was implemented, prices for covered pork products in
    California increased by 20 percent on average, with pork loins
    increasing as much as 41 percent. This disproportionately affects
    lower-income households and families battling inflation and increasing
    food costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2024/03/19/
    v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Outside California, more widespread adoption of measures like
    Proposition 12 would likewise lead to consumers across the country
    paying higher prices for pork.
        Left unchecked, a patchwork of conflicting, Proposition 12-style
    regulations around the country would also lead to even more
    consolidation of the industry as pork producers are forced to
    constantly reconstruct their operations or close their doors. Moreover,
    the producers who can afford to comply would experience losses in
    productivity at the same time they would face the costs of increasing
    their square footage. And when activists are again successful at
    persuading a state to adopt anything above Proposition 12's 24 square
    foot requirement, the wholesale revision of farm practices and
    contracts will start all over again.
    Bipartisan Opposition
        The implications of Proposition 12 go far beyond pork producers'
    farm gates and open a Pandora's box of potential state regulations that
    would fracture the national market. Combined with the economic and
    structural impacts on the pork industry, this leads to strong
    opposition to Proposition 12 by officials and lawmakers in both
    parties.
        President Trump opposes Proposition 12 and has committed \4\ to
    using every legal tool to address the problems it has caused outside of
    California's borders. Former President Biden \5\ also opposed the
    initiative, with his solicitor general arguing in support of the
    position of NPPC and American Farm Bureau Federation in their case
    against Proposition 12 before the Supreme Court.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://web.archive.org/web/20240912215853/https:/www.fb.org/
    presidential-candidate-questionnaire%22%20/l%20%22stateregulations.
        \5\ https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2022/06/
    21/biden-administration-sides-ag-scotus.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In testimony before this Committee, former Agriculture Secretary
    Tom Vilsack said \6\ of the problems caused by Proposition 12, ``If we
    don't take this issue seriously, we're going to have chaos in the
    marketplace.'' Likewise, current USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins
    testified \7\ that ``California has the right to do what California
    wants to do. But the minute that crosses the border and begins to
    compromise, in such a significant way, our pork producers, we need to
    act.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-agriculture-
    secretary-sees-chaos-meat-market-without-congressional-action-2024-02-
    14/.
        \7\ https://x.com/NPPC/status/1932892752284660061/video/1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman GT Thompson thought Proposition 12 important enough to
    address in the ``Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.'' In a
    letter \8\ supporting that act sent May 2024 to Chairman Thompson and
    Ranking Member David Scott, more than 900 agricultural organizations
    pointed out that ``California's Proposition
    12 . . . [is] causing turmoil in agricultural markets and having
    significant detrimental impacts on our members' farms and ranches,
    especially small- and medium-sized farms.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://nppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Agriculture-
    Stakeholder-Proposition-12-Letter-to-House-Ag.-Leadership.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senate legislation, the ``Food Security and Farm Protection Act,''
    was introduced earlier this Congress to prohibit states from imposing a
    standard or condition on the pre-harvest production of any agricultural
    products sold or offered for sale if produced elsewhere. NPPC and many
    other agricultural associations have offered their support \9\ for this
    approach.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://nppc.org/news/nppc-praises-sens-ernst-grassley-
    marshalls-efforts-to-avert-pork-industry-crisis/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond the concerns of pork producers around the country,
    Proposition 12 also sets a dangerous precedent that allows a large
    state to effectively regulate agriculture and farming--indeed, any
    sector--in other states, an outcome with negative implications for
    interstate commerce.
    Effects on International Trade
        Proposition 12 is not only a domestic problem. It applies to
    foreign pork industries that want to sell pork in California, forcing
    them to forgo the market or spend millions converting farms and accept
    foreign auditors to ensure their compliance. (Pork importing
    distributors will need to submit third-party certifications to
    California officials that their products meet the state's housing
    standards.)
        U.S. trading partners are pushing back. The Canadian Pork Council
    (CPC), for example, claims Proposition 12 violates \10\ the U.S.
    Constitution's Commerce Clause by preventing the United States ``from
    speaking with one voice on the regulation of foreign commerce.'' The
    CPC filed a friend-of-the-court brief \11\ with the U.S. Supreme Court
    in the NPPC-AFBF case against Proposition 12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.farmprogress.com/commentary/foreign-impacts-of-
    proposition-12.
        \11\ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-468/228288/
    20220617125858968_21-468_NPPCvRoss_AmicusBrief_2022-06-17.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``It's a state proposition,'' said Stephen Heckbert, executive
    director of the CPC. ``International trade and international trade
    agreements are the sole provision of the U.S. Government.''
        Indeed, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), provinces
    and states are not permitted to create non-tariff barriers to trade.
    The Canadian government issued a statement saying it is analyzing the
    effects of Proposition 12 on trade and considering the U.S. obligations
    under USMCA, as well as the World Trade Organization's Agreement on
    Technical Barriers to Trade.
        Furthermore, a state-based regulation with a clear international
    reach such as Proposition 12, created outside of normal and customary
    international negotiations and agreements, puts all American
    agriculture in a vulnerable position by providing a pathway for any
    nation to impose its own production standards.
    Conclusion
        Proposition 12 has wrought negative impacts on the pork industry
    and set a dangerous precedent for a patchwork of state legislation.
    Simply stated, this must be undone. NPPC and the AFBF attempted to use
    the courts to reverse Proposition 12, and while the Supreme Court did
    not accept their arguments on the ``dormant commerce'' clause, the high
    court did make clear that Congress can act to address the problems with
    Proposition 12.
        The bottom line is that Proposition 12's arbitrary sow housing
    standards were developed without input from pork producers,
    veterinarians, or experts in animal care, food safety, and other
    elements of pork production. Proposition 12 advances no legitimate
    public interest. The AVMA and AASV state that it is not objectively
    better for animals and, further, limits tools to maximize animal
    welfare. The initiative has no human health benefits but rather, could
    increase pathogen transmission, according to the CDFA, and it
    eliminates pork producers' flexibility to decide which housing methods
    are best for their sows, their operations, and their ability to produce
    safe, wholesome, affordable pork.
        NPPC urges Congress to follow the path laid out by the Supreme
    Court and use its ability to fix Proposition 12 and the myriad problems
    it has created or set in motion. Congressional lawmakers should support
    efforts to rein in state attempts to regulate a safe, responsible,
    reliable $27 billion pork industry, restore the sovereignty of states
    to effectively manage their own businesses, and abide by international
    trade obligations.

        The Chairman. Mr. Hord, thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Schuiteman, please begin when you are ready.

              STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SCHUITEMAN, DISTRICT 3
             MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IOWA FARM BUREAU
           FEDERATION; CO-OWNER, AJS FARMS, SIOUX CENTER, IA

        Mr. Schuiteman. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking
    Member Craig, and House Agriculture Committee, to allow me to
    testify on this important issue.
        Sioux County, where I live, is consistently one of the top
    pork-producing counties in the United States, and Iowa accounts
    for nearly 40 percent of all hog production in this country.
        I have been farming and raising pigs all my life. I was
    born and raised on a farrow-to-finish operation and continued
    to farrow pigs until 2018. I have witnessed firsthand the
    advancements and improvements in our industry that prioritizes
    responsible production and animal well-being. I have raised
    hogs in all types of environments, and my life experiences
    provide a unique perspective to understand the negative
    consequences of initiatives like California's Prop 12 for both
    farmers and consumers.
        I am confident that U.S. pork production is more
    sustainable and humane than ever before. Our responsible
    industry growth resulted from stakeholders coming together,
    from producers to veterinarians to animal health and behavioral
    experts. It is the result of our pursuit of continuous
    improvement and seeking ways to provide our pigs the best
    possible environment.
        New technologies like computer thermostats and devices that
    measure both the volume and air movement in a hog barn are
    resources we use to ensure the maximum comfort of our pigs. In
    northwest Iowa, our climate can be extreme. Modern climate-
    controlled barns allow pigs to live comfortably year-round with
    access to fresh water, controlled feed, and real-time
    monitoring to provide the best customized environment and care.
        The most important thing I have learned from a lifetime of
    raising pigs is that it is critical for producers to have full
    control over the environment in which their pigs are raised.
    Lacking control to tailor our farm to best serve the animals'
    needs is one of the biggest problems with Prop 12. When the
    rates at which barns may be stocked are determined arbitrarily,
    it creates economic hardship for the producer and can be
    detrimental to the pigs themselves. The decision of how many
    pigs to put in a barn at any given time in a production cycle
    should be left to the owners and managers of these farms who
    have the knowledge and experience.
        Prop 12 regulation centers around housing requirements of
    breeding stock. Management and husbandry of swine breeding
    stock is an area rife with misconceptions and misinformation.
    The intent behind giving sows more room to move around has good
    intention but creates several challenges and unintended
    consequences.
        Our efforts have always revolved around three principles:
    one, the comfort of the animal; two, the productivity of the
    animal; and three, the health and safety of the stockman. We
    have learned that confinement of breeding females has proven to
    be the best mix of those three principles.
        One thing that must be understood in the housing
    conversation is the ever-changing group dynamic of female
    breeding herds. Often, sows on the lowest rungs of the social
    hierarchy are pushed away from feed and water, and in many
    cases they will be targeted and can be physically harmed by
    others in the group. Production systems have evolved with this
    reality in mind to provide the best animal care.
        That social hierarchy and behavior has real impacts for
    both animal welfare and farmer profitability. It can mean the
    difference between a female that produces 15 pigs in one litter
    versus a female that has only five, or in many cases will end
    up aborting her entire litter altogether. The safety and
    survivability of piglets is a top priority. Proper housing of
    an expectant female significantly impacts her offspring and
    number of healthy piglets.
        From years of experience and lessons learned raising pigs,
    the pork industry found farrowing stalls to be the best method
    for both nursing sows and their baby pigs. The stalls help
    confine the mother while providing large, comfortable areas for
    the newborn baby pigs to lay down and rest. Confinement of the
    sow at this point is critical to the survival of her piglets.
        When making animal housing decisions, we must also consider
    the safety of the farmer and other herd caretakers. The sheer
    size of sows poses a risk to the stockman when undertaking
    everyday herd management activities. Breeding females also
    become more aggressive during the breeding and farrowing time
    periods, the times when the most direct management is needed.
    Regulation dictating how sows are housed and managed during
    these parts of the production cycle adds significant safety
    risks to the animals and caretakers. These housing decisions
    must stay on the farm with the people that know their animals
    best.
        Some consumers demand products that require premium pricing
    to compensate for less efficient production methods, while at
    the same time, many consumers have limited household budgets
    and are looking for affordable protein. When given flexibility
    in production, the pork industry can accommodate both.
        Spending my entire life raising pigs in a variety of ways,
    I am convinced it is best to allow production methods and
    consumption demands to take shape in the open market as opposed
    to arbitrarily shaping them through poorly worded and short-
    sighted ballot initiatives. We need Congress to pass a fix to
    the Prop 12 issue, and we are asking you to protect Iowa
    farmers from overreach from initiatives that seek to harm
    animal agriculture and that increase the cost of animal protein
    to the consumer.
        Thank you to the Committee for the time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schuiteman follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Matthew Schuiteman, District 3 Member, Board of
      Directors, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Co-Owner, AJS Farms, Sioux
                                   Center, IA
        Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and House Ag
    Committee, to allow me to testify on this important issue.
        My name is Matt Schuiteman, and I live and farm with my wife Minde
    and our seven children near Sioux Center in Sioux County, Iowa. I am
    here today representing my farm, my county, and the Iowa Farm Bureau,
    where I currently serve as a Member of the Board of Directors. Sioux
    County is the heart of the hog industry--our county is consistently one
    of the top five pork producing counties in the United States, and
    beyond that, Iowa represents almost 40% of all hog production in the
    country.
        I have been involved in the hog industry my entire life. I was born
    and raised on a farrow-to-finish operation and continued to farrow pigs
    until 2018. I have witnessed firsthand the transformation of the swine
    industry from outdoor production facilities with barns and feeding
    floors to fully indoor facilities that are entirely contained and
    climate controlled. I have raised hogs in all types of environments,
    outdoors and indoors, on cement and on grass pasture. I believe my life
    experiences allow me the opportunity to evaluate the effects of
    initiatives like California's Prop. 12 in unique ways.
        I believe that U.S. pork production has never been as
    environmentally friendly, safe, and humane as it is today. The number
    of hours spent developing the modern practices and building management
    systems we use today can't be overstated. I remember well the process
    of adapting our own operation to indoor production. We spent a great
    deal of both time and capital in our quest to ensure that we provide
    our pigs with the best environment that we possibly could. This
    involved new technologies such as computer thermostats and devices that
    measure both the volume and air movement patterns of airflow in a hog
    barn. I say this to emphasize the point that producers employ all
    available resources to ensure the maximum comfort of their pigs.
    Comfortable pigs are healthy pigs.
        Advancement in technology is very apparent when one considers the
    growth of pork production in the United States. I was a member of the
    FFA in the early 1990s, and one of my projects was raising a group of
    pigs. At that time, efficient sows would produce 20 pigs per year, and
    efficient pigs would reach a market weight of 240 lbs between 6 and 7
    months. Today, we have sows producing as many as 33 pigs per year, and
    efficient pigs can reach a market weight of 300 lbs in 5\1/2\ months.
    Incredible gains in efficiencies made possible in large part due to the
    environmental technologies developed and deployed in the buildings
    where these pigs are raised.
        The most important thing I've learned from a lifetime of being
    around pigs is that it's critical for producers to have full control
    over the environment where they raise pigs. Every farm and building are
    different, and the owners and managers of those farms and buildings
    know best how to manage the unique, individual environments that they
    encounter to give their animals the best possible environment. I find
    the lack of this full control to be one of the bigger problems with
    Prop. 12. It is not possible for someone who lives thousands of miles
    away from a farm to know how best to manage the environment of each
    individual building on that farm.
        Where I live in Northwest Iowa, our climate is notoriously extreme.
    It's not uncommon to have temperatures above 100 in the summer, and as
    low as 20 below zero in the winter. When dealing with this incredible
    amount of variance, we employ vast variety of management strategies,
    tailored to both extremes. Agriculture is an industry where there is no
    one-size-fits-all answer for our barns, where pigs will grow from 13
    lbs to 300 lbs, all under the same roof. Managing a barn full of 13 lb
    pigs is much different than managing a barn full of market-ready, 300
    lb pigs. When the rates at which barns may be stocked are determined
    arbitrarily, it not only produces economic harm to the producer, but
    can also be incredibly detrimental to the pigs themselves, for
    different reasons at various ages and stages of growth. The decision of
    how many pigs to put in a barn at any given time in a production cycle
    should be left to the owners and managers of these farms and facilities
    who are working with these animals daily.
        Much of the regulation in Prop. 12 centers around the housing of
    breeding stock. Management and husbandry of swine breeding stock is an
    area rife with misconceptions and misinformation. In a sense, the
    intent behind giving sows more room to move around is pure. The swine
    industry has for years spent both capital and human resources to
    identify the best way to house the breeding herd. These efforts have
    always revolved around three principles: (1) The comfort of the animal;
    (2) The productivity of the animal; and (3) The health and safety of
    the stockman. Over time, individual confinement of breeding females has
    been proven to be the best mix of those three principles. At the same
    time it has been recognized that some freedom of movement can aid the
    health and longevity of the female while making minimal sacrifices to
    her production.
        One thing that must be understood in this conversation is that the
    group dynamic of any given female breeding herd. Pigs are very much a
    hierarchical species and always changing. A pen of females housed as a
    group will always establish a social hierarchy within that group. This
    will include a few females that are ``in charge,'' and a few at the
    bottom of the social ladder. Often, sows who find themselves on the
    lowest rungs of the hierarchy are pushed away from feed and water, and
    in many cases, targeted and physically harmed by others in the group.
    Production systems have been designed, and are constantly tweaked with
    this reality in mind.
        In my own experience, that social hierarchy can mean the difference
    between a female that can produce 15 pigs in one litter vs. a female
    that only has five, or in many cases, will end up aborting her entire
    litter altogether. Beyond the well-being of the sows, the economic
    impact of the social interactions in female breeding swine is also
    incredibly significant. This is another reason why the decision on how
    to best house female pigs needs to be solely with the producer or
    manager of the herd.
        Aside from the social dynamics, there are two other aspects that
    must be dealt with when making housing decisions. The first is the
    safety and survivability of piglets. Proper housing of an expectant
    female will significantly impact how many offspring she can have. The
    gestation phase of a sow is commonly reported as being ``3 months, 3
    weeks, 3 days'', or roughly 115 days total. Around that 115 day mark,
    the pregnancy becomes full term, and labor commences. It is common at
    this point for a sow to be moved into a farrowing stall for the labor
    and nursing of the new litter of pigs. Confinement of the sow at this
    point is critical to the survival of her piglets.
        Practically, sows weigh 400 lbs. or more; conversely, their
    offspring commonly have a birth weight of about 3 lbs. Imagine standing
    next to something that is more than 100 times bigger than yourself.
    That can help provide a picture of what baby pigs see when they look up
    at their mother. When these piglets nurse, the mother lays on her
    side--so imagine again something that much larger crashing to its side
    directly next to you. Hopefully both are paying attention and able to
    move out of the way quickly enough to avoid being crushed. This is the
    life of a newborn pig. This is the reason that the pork industry
    utilizes farrowing stalls, which confine the mother while giving large,
    comfortable areas for the newborn baby pigs to lay down and rest, free
    from the fear of being crushed.
        The nursing process is a fascinating one. Often, the sow kicks off
    the process by eating or drinking. After standing for a bit, she'll
    start grunting, talking to her piglets, telling them that she is
    getting ready to feed them. The piglets hear and respond by gathering
    around her. She starts to lay down, and as she does, she selects which
    side she wants to lay on to expose her underline so her pigs can nurse.
    This is the most dangerous part of the process for piglets. Sometimes,
    piglets move with the sow and get safely into position to begin
    nursing.
        Unfortunately, there are other, all too often times where piglets
    get caught and trapped under the sow as she lays down, resulting in
    injury, or frequently death. I have many times been present during this
    process, and have many times had to save a piglet from being crushed.
    Sometimes the mother sow will hear the piglet squeal and make necessary
    adjustments, but many times human intervention is the only way a pig
    can be saved from this situation.
        The final aspect considered in the housing decision is the safety
    of the owner and/or manager of the herd. Sows are large, and can reach
    sizes of 400 lbs or more. The sheer size of sows pose a risk to the
    stockman when undertaking everyday herd management activities. Breeding
    females also become more aggressive during breeding and farrowing--the
    times when the most direct and hands on management practices are
    needed. The stockman must be able to safely stay in close proximity to
    the sows to ensure that they can receive the proper care and management
    that are required during these key times in the production cycle.
        Regulations dictating how sows are housed and managed during the
    production cycle add significant safety risk to those who are actually
    providing care to the herd. These decisions must stay on the farm and
    with the people who assume the risks that come with hands on
    management.
        The Supreme Court's ruling on Proposition 12 has highlighted an
    area in Federal law that allows individual states to influence business
    practices across the entire nation. This ruling makes it clear that
    Congress is uniquely positioned to address this issue and help maintain
    a consistent approach to interstate commerce.
        Currently, there is a possibility that states could create a
    complicated landscape for interstate trade by passing laws that limit
    or restrict the sale of goods originating in other states. Such state-
    specific regulations could disrupt the longstanding balance that has
    facilitated commerce between states.
        Delays in addressing this issue may make it more difficult to
    resolve conflicting state laws in the future. The longer these
    inconsistencies persist, the more challenging it may become for
    businesses to navigate various regulations and maintain efficient
    operations.
        Small farms and family businesses may be particularly affected if
    state laws set standards that are hard for them to meet. This can lead
    to further consolidation, as smaller producers might struggle to keep
    up with larger operations that have more resources. Many times these
    smaller producers choose to stay in business by adopting their
    operation towards a niche market. Government involvement in setting
    standards can infringe on the opportunities that these niche markets
    offer to producers. When this happens the opportunity for profit from
    these adaptations disappears for the producers who are involved.
        Prop 12 has had substantial economic impacts on the supply chain.
    Data is hard to come by, but so far the analysis points the same
    direction: it's bad for pig welfare, it's bad for pig farmers, it's bad
    for pork consumers. And this will have negative long-term consequences
    for the industry if we don't find a fix.
        Despite being billed as animal welfare regulation, Prop 12 has been
    shown to have serious negative animal welfare outcomes for pigs.
    Research results presented by the Pipestone System at the 2024
    Minnesota Pork Congress show that animal health outcomes in Prop 12
    barns in their system are worse than traditional stall and pen barns
    according to several key metrics. In Prop 12-compliant barns, 10.2% of
    the herd gets treated for lameness in a 10 week period, versus only
    3.5% of the herd in stall barns.\1\ The percentage of animals culled
    for lameness in a Prop 12 barn was shown to be double (1.2% vs. 0.45%)
    that of stall barns, as well as the percentage of animals that died due
    to lameness (1.11% vs. 0.45%). Farmers are always going to do their
    best to care for their pigs, but the reality is, according to this
    research, Prop 12's requirements resulted in worse animal welfare
    outcomes for pigs in the Pipestone system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://youtu.be/ISlIygZTuZY?si=yDQ3h4G_12iSmLig&t=1223.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Prop 12 has also resulted in negative economic outcomes for pig
    farmers. The same Pipestone research showed that, in part due to
    increased incidences of lameness, a 5,000 sow farm required 105 more
    anti-inflammatory injections and 160 more antibiotic injections per
    week compared to a stall barn. Additionally, sow death loss was nearly
    2% higher in Prop 12 barns versus stall barns, due significantly to
    lameness. Setting aside the mental health impacts of these losses to
    pig farmers, these represent substantial economic losses that must be
    made up somehow. If these losses are made up with a premium to farmers,
    those premiums come from higher prices for consumers.
        Finally, Prop 12 has been harmful to consumers in California.
    According to an early 2024 analysis authored by economists in the
    USDA's Office of the Chief Economist, prices for pork products in
    California covered by Prop 12 were 20% higher than they would have been
    from July 1, 2023, to February 4, 2024, due to Prop 12.\2\ Pork loins
    specifically saw an incredible 41% increase in price in California due
    to Prop 12. This increase was far greater than the 7.7% long-run price
    increase that was predicted by California's official forecast conducted
    by researchers at UC-Davis.\3\ We'll see what the price increases end
    up being when the dust settles, but we know that immediately following
    implementation, this was harmful to California's consumers, most of
    whom did not know why their pork got more expensive and likely
    attributed the increases to economy-wide inflation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2024/03/19/
    v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf.
        \3\ https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2021/08/17/v24n6_2.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When I traveled to California last year with Iowa Farm Bureau to
    learn about Prop 12, I was shocked to discover that there was no Prop
    12 labeling on pork packaging whatsoever. Come to find out, there is no
    legal requirement to label the packaging, and voluntary labels weren't
    being used. If this was truly something that consumers wanted and
    valued, wouldn't the retailers capitalize on those consumer preferences
    to recoup some of the cost?
        There are many different management systems that have been designed
    and implemented in the swine industry, including systems that have been
    developed specifically for markets with requirements like Prop. 12.
    It's important to provide freedom for both pork producers and
    consumers. Some consumers will demand products that need to be priced
    with a premium to compensate for less efficient production methods,
    where as other consumers will simply demand access to the most
    affordable source of protein they can purchase. There's ample
    opportunity for both the production and the consumption of pork
    produced in a variety of ways, but it's best that we simply allow such
    production and consumption methods to take shape as the market demands,
    as opposed to arbitrarily shaping them before the market gets a say.
        We need Congress to pass a fix to the prop 12 issue, it is your job
    to help protect Iowa farmers from overreach by states who want to harm
    animal agriculture.

        The Chairman. Mr. Schuiteman, thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        Ms. Cook, please begin when you are ready.

      STATEMENT OF HOLLY COOK, ECONOMIST, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS
                       COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Cook. Good morning. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
    Craig, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    invitation to testify today. My name is Holly Cook, and I am an
    Economist with the National Pork Producers Council, which
    represents 42 affiliated state pork associations and fights for
    reasonable public policy while protecting the livelihood of
    America's pork producers.
        I hold a master's degree in agricultural economics from
    Iowa State University, and while I am a current resident of
    Washington, D.C., I grew up on a farrow-to-finish hog farm in
    northeast Iowa, where my family continues actively farming
    today. I am here this morning to discuss the economic impacts
    of California's Proposition 12 and the implications that a
    conflicting state-by-state patchwork of regulations would have
    on the U.S. pork industry.
        Pork producers have faced many challenges in recent years,
    including a period of severe financial losses that by some
    measures was the worst in our industry's history. From late
    2022 to early 2024, record high production costs and lower hog
    prices resulted in an average loss of $29 on each hog sold,
    equating to billions of dollars in lost equity across the
    industry.
        While margins have improved in 2025 and many farms are
    continuing to recover financially, there is no shortage of risk
    facing U.S. pork producers and their ability to make decisions
    and remain viable for future generations. The issues created by
    Prop 12 only add to the uncertainty, and despite recommending
    Congress fix Prop 12, the Supreme Court's decision has opened
    the door for any state to put stipulations on the sale of pork
    outside its borders.
        While California accounts for about 13 percent of domestic
    pork consumption, it is responsible for less than 0.1 percent
    of hog production, meaning it relies almost entirely on out-of-
    state farmers to supply compliant products. As expected,
    compliance with Prop 12 raises the cost of production at the
    farm level.
        While becoming compliant looks different for each
    individual farm, every approach comes with costs. For farms
    with group pen gestation systems, converting barns to be
    compliant may mean a 30 percent to 40 percent decline in
    production, a result of having fewer sows combined with reduced
    efficiencies. Farms may also face higher average costs for
    utilities, veterinary care, labor, and feed, and they will have
    to spread their fixed costs out over fewer weaned pigs
    produced.
        Producers now also face decisions when replacing old barns
    and constructing new facilities. Because new Prop 12-compliant
    barns cost more per sow than other housing styles, producers
    would need to receive a premium of $5 to $8 on every pig sold
    for 15 years just to break even and would need as much as $20
    per pig to make them no worse off than investing in other
    housing systems. These estimates come from a study by
    economists at Iowa State University and the University of
    Minnesota. The current environment not only threatens the
    certainty and sufficiency of premiums, but it also increases
    the risk of future investment decisions.
        With higher costs at the farm level combined with
    segmentation costs throughout the supply chain, it is no
    surprise that Prop 12 has also resulted in significantly higher
    prices for California consumers. A study by economists at the
    University of California-Davis estimated that after a
    transition period, Prop 12's long-run outcome would be eight
    percent higher pork prices and a six percent decline in
    California's consumption of covered pork cuts, resulting in a
    $320 million hit to consumers each year.
        So far, Prop 12's impact has been even greater. A report by
    USDA economists showed that in the first 8 months of
    implementation, prices for covered products increased by 20
    percent on average due to Prop 12, with pork loins seeing an
    even greater increase at 41 percent. It has been more than a
    year since that report was released, and updated scanner data
    shows that these trends continue to hold. Retail prices in
    California are still over 20 percent higher than before Prop 12
    took effect, while the total sales volume is down by double
    digits. This means Californians are now spending more but
    consuming less pork.
        While Californians are seeing the impacts today, one study
    found that if the entire industry were required to adopt a
    system like Prop 12, it would reduce total U.S. consumer
    welfare by $41 billion over 15 years, disproportionately
    impacting price-sensitive, high-pork-consuming households. It
    is also critical to recognize that compliance is more feasible
    for larger farms that can more easily offset costs and secure
    the needed capital. Widespread adoption of Prop 12-like
    measures would almost certainly hasten the closing of doors for
    small- to medium-sized farms, or at the very least result in a
    greater percentage of U.S. sows being owned by fewer farms.
        In closing, NPPC urges Congress to fix the challenges
    created by Prop 12 and deliver much-needed certainty to U.S.
    pork producers. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
    expertise, and I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Cook follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Holly Cook, Economist, National Pork Producers
                           Council, Washington, D.C.
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify. I appreciate the
    opportunity to provide perspectives on the current economic impacts of
    California's Proposition 12, as well as the potential impacts that
    additional state laws or a conflicting patchwork of regulations, would
    have on the U.S. pork industry.
        My name is Holly Cook, and I am an economist with the National Pork
    Producers Council (NPPC), an organization representing 42 affiliated
    state associations that fights for reasonable public policy while
    protecting the livelihood of America's pork producers. I hold a
    master's degree in Agricultural Economics from Iowa State University,
    and while I am a current resident of Washington, D.C., I grew up on a
    farrow-to-finish hog farm in northeast Iowa, where my family continues
    actively farming today.
    U.S. Pork Industry Overview
        From late 2022 to early 2024, U.S. pork producers experienced
    severe financial losses resulting from record-high production costs and
    lower hog prices due to a pullback in domestic consumer demand.
    According to reports by Iowa State University Extension and Outreach,
    losses for farrow-to-finish hog producers averaged $29 per head during
    this time, equating to billions of dollars in cumulative lost
    equity.\1\ Beginning in April 2024, margins began to recover as lower
    feed costs and improved macroeconomic factors supported stronger demand
    for U.S. pork. As of June 2025, pork producers have seen nearly 15
    months of positive profitability averaging nearly $10 per head, and
    many farms across the country are continuing to recover from the recent
    financial downturn.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. (2025). Estimated
    Livestock Returns--Swine. Iowa State University.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 1: Estimated Monthly Returns, Farrow-to-Finish Producers (Jan.
            2019-May 2025)

        While moderate profits have returned to the pork industry,
    producers continue to face significant risks impacting their
    businesses. From the threat of a foreign animal disease, which would
    shutter the export markets that account for 25% of U.S. pork
    production, to domestic and international demand uncertainty, labor
    shortages, endemic disease pressure, market volatility, and policy
    uncertainty, there is no shortage of challenges facing U.S. pork
    producers.
        Over time, cycles of loss and profitability as well as significant
    market and production risk factors have influenced the structure of the
    pork industry. According to the latest U.S. Census of Agriculture,
    there were about 60,000 U.S. farms with hogs in inventory at the end of
    2022. This represents a decline of 5,600 farms from the last Ag Census
    in 2017, with 99% of the farms lost being those that had less than
    5,000 head in inventory.\2\ Importantly, the latest Ag Census does not
    account for farms lost during the recent period of financial losses.
    Furthermore, the pork industry continues to see a transition toward
    contract production, which provides producers an opportunity to remain
    engaged in hog farming without production or market price risk, though
    over time has resulted in a greater percentage of U.S. sows owned by
    fewer farms. As of 2022, independent pork producers owned 35% of the
    U.S. hog inventory; 24% was owned and cared for directly by contractors
    or integrators, and 41% of the inventory was under the care of a
    contract grower but owned by a contractor.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
    Statistics Service. (2022). Table 20-23. Hogs and Pigs Sales, Herd Size
    by Inventory and Sales, Inventory and Sales by Number Sold per Farm,
    Inventory by Type of Producer. 2022 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1,
    Chap. 1 U.S. National Level Data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Issues like California's Proposition 12, and the threat of a 50
    state patchwork of conflicting animal housing regulations, have only
    added to the uncertainty and risk that U.S. producers must consider
    when making critical decisions about the future of their businesses.
    Background on California's Proposition 12
        California's Proposition 12, formally known as the ``Farm Animal
    Confinement Initiative,'' was approved by California voters in November
    2018. The law establishes minimum space requirements for veal calves,
    egg-laying hens, and breeding pigs, and prohibits the sale of meat and
    eggs in California from animals not raised in compliance with those
    standards, regardless of where the animals are raised.
        As it pertains to pork, Proposition 12 requires that any uncooked,
    whole pork cuts sold in California must come from sows housed in a
    minimum of 24 square feet of space and with the ability to turn around
    freely. At the time of passage, only a very small percentage of U.S.
    pork would have met the standards set by Proposition 12, and this
    product was presumably committed to other market channels that had
    demonstrated sufficient demand.
        Proposition 12 further prohibits the use of gestation stalls for
    breeding sows, except during limited circumstances, such as the 5 day
    period prior to the expected date of giving birth and any day the sow
    is nursing piglets. There is a partial exception for animal husbandry
    purposes, but it is limited to no more than 6 hours in any 24 hour
    period and no more than 24 hours total in any 30 day period.
    Effectively, Proposition 12 requires the mixing of sows while they are
    at their most vulnerable time, which in many cases results in higher
    sow mortality, lower conception rates, and reduced productivity.
        After a series of legal challenges brought by NPPC and the American
    Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), Proposition 12 was upheld by the United
    States Supreme Court in the May 2023 National Pork Producers Council
    vs. Ross decision. While the court acknowledged the concerns brought by
    NPPC, it found that an act of Congress would be most appropriate for
    addressing the far-reaching challenges created by Proposition 12.
    Implementation of the law was set for July 1, 2023, but a June 2023
    announcement modified implementation to allow for any non-compliant
    pork already in the supply chain prior to July 1, 2023, to be sold in
    California until December 31, 2023. Full enforcement efforts and third-
    party certification requirements began on January 1, 2024.
    Importance of the California Market
        In 2024, California's 39.4 million residents accounted for 12% of
    the U.S. population,\3\ though retail data, consumption indices, and
    population demographics suggest that Californians consume more pork per
    capita than the U.S. average, indicating that California accounts for
    approximately 13% of domestic pork consumption.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). State population totals and
    components of change: 2020-2024. U.S. Department of Commerce.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The impact of Proposition 12 is complicated by the fact that it
    applies only to certain pork products, specifically, uncooked cuts of
    pork. This includes popular items such as pork chops, ribs, loins,
    fresh hams, and uncooked bacon. It does not apply to ground pork,
    sausage, or processed or cooked products like canned hams, or
    combination products, like hot dogs or pizzas. While covered items are
    estimated to account for 53-56% of the carcass, the entire pig must be
    raised in a compliant manner to supply covered products.
        Additionally, California's consumption equates to about 10% of the
    U.S. pork produced, but because the state's consumption of covered pork
    cuts is almost certainly not proportionate to the cuts derived from a
    single pig, this creates a situation where more than 10% of U.S. hogs
    must be Prop 12-compliant. For instance, if ribs are more popular than
    another cut, more pigs must be compliant to supply the products
    Californians wish to purchase. Estimates indicate that approximately
    700,000 sows would be needed to meet historical demand levels in
    California, equating to about 12% of the current U.S. breeding herd of
    6.0 million.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Lee, H., Sexton, R. J., and Sumner, D.A. (2021). Voter Approved
    Proposition to Raise California Pork Prices. (ARE Update 24(6): 5-8).
    University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While it is the largest single-state market for pork, California's
    in-state hog and pork production is nowhere near sufficient to meet the
    pork demands of its residents. In 2023, California had a December 1
    inventory of 39,000 total hogs on farms, including 6,000 breeding
    animals, and the state accounted for less than 0.1% of hog
    production.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
    Statistics Service. (2025). Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and
    Income, 2024 Summary. USA Economics, Statistics, and Market Information
    Systems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consequently, the standards imposed by Proposition 12 require out-
    of-state producers to make conversions to continue supplying their
    products to California. While this is, in theory, a choice to be made
    by producers and packers across the country, the size and relative
    importance of the California market means pressures associated with
    Proposition 12 have widespread impacts.
        An example of how the actions of one state can impact the national
    pork market was demonstrated in the months following the partial
    implementation of Proposition 12. After the June 2023 announcement that
    non-compliant pork already in the supply chain could continue to be
    sold in California until the end of the year, buyers looked to stock up
    on non-compliant pork, which put upward pressure on prices for certain
    covered pork cuts. According to weekly reports by USDA's Agricultural
    Marketing Service under Livestock Mandatory Reporting, the USDA
    calculated primal value for pork bellies, which incorporates the price
    and volume of specific pork belly cuts with an adjustment for labor and
    packaging, increased nearly 200% from June to August 2023, reaching the
    highest level in 2 years. Figure 2 shows how belly primal values in
    2023 trailed 2021 levels by an average of 43% for the first half of the
    year before narrowing for the 8 weeks following July 1. Additionally,
    the fundamental situation in hog and pork markets was drastically
    different in 2021 than in 2023, further emphasizing the influence that
    Proposition 12 had in pushing 2023 belly values within 5% of 2021
    levels for several weeks in July and August.
    Figure 2: Weekly Negotiated Belly Primal Value \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock, Poultry, &
    Grain Market News. (2021-2024). National Weekly Pork FOB Plant-
    Negotiated Sales (LM_PK610).

    Farm-Level Costs of Producing Proposition 12-Compliant Pork
        Complying with Proposition 12 requires adjustments to be made by
    pork producers, pork packers, distributors, retailers, and others
    across the supply chain. At the farm level, the way in which a producer
    may modify their operation to become compliant depends heavily on the
    individual farm, the starting point of existing barns, and to a degree,
    geographic location and the prospect of premiums offered. While the
    exact approach will be unique for each operation, producers will
    consider three general options for undertaking Proposition 12
    compliance:

      1.  The seemingly least expensive option would be to reduce the
                number of sows in an existing barn without adding
                additional space. For a farm that is already engaged in
                group housing, the capital investment to reduce sows and
                increase the square footage available to each sow could
                start at $100-$200 per sow. However, farms currently
                utilizing gestation stalls and wanting to retrofit for
                Proposition 12 compliance could incur costs exceeding
                $1,000 per sow to remove stalls and install the necessary
                infrastructure. While this approach incurs the lowest up-
                front capital investment, a critical factor regardless of
                starting point is the lost throughput. Both would require a
                reduction in the number of sows, depending on the starting
                square footage, and would result in fewer weaned pigs
                produced. The restricted use of gestation stalls to provide
                individualized care during the sow's most vulnerable times
                has been reported to further impact productivity. The
                combination of fewer sows and lower farrowing rates could
                be expected to result in a 30-40% reduction in weaned pig
                production for a farm transitioning 18 to 24 square feet.
                On top of lost revenue, there are also higher variable
                costs related to heating the building, labor, veterinary
                care, and feed efficiencies, and higher fixed costs per pig
                produced due to what would become underutilized farrowing
                and finishing capacity. Despite these significant cost
                considerations, this approach may be the only option for a
                producer who is limited by local permitting or farm
                construction limitations.

      2.  To avoid lost throughput, producers could consider retrofitting
                existing barns to achieve compliance while adding space to
                maintain their sow herd. However, due to expected
                productivity impacts related to higher mortality and
                reduced efficiencies, producers would likely need to expand
                the sow herd in hopes of maintaining weaned pig production.
                Estimates of farrowing rate impacts vary by farm and may
                evolve over time, but using an assumed 5% more sows needed
                to produce the same number of pigs, this option would
                require the construction of 38% more space to maintain pig
                flows while also incurring higher variable and fixed costs
                per pig.

      3.  Last, some producers have and will continue to face decisions
                when replacing or updating old barns and constructing new
                facilities. While initial impact estimates assumed that all
                Proposition 12-compliant pork would be produced on farms
                with the lowest cost of conversion, it is true that some
                producers have chosen to build new Proposition 12-compliant
                barns. Due to the 24 foot space requirement, new
                Proposition 12-compliant barns are estimated to cost as
                much as 25% more than conventional group housing and 40%
                more than a barn utilizing gestation stalls for the same
                number of sows. Reports in 2023 estimated new Proposition
                12-compliant housing covering the farrow-to-wean phase of
                production to cost up to $4,000-4,500 per sow for larger
                units and potentially 10-15% more per sow for smaller
                farms, though the cost today could be considerably higher
                as construction costs continue to rise. 7, 8
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Schulz, L.L., Hadrich, J.C., (2023). An Economic Assessment of
    New Swine Gestation Facility Investment.
        \8\ Goodwin, B.K. (2023). California's Proposition 12 and the
    Impacts on the Pork Industry.

        For any farm to willingly accept higher costs and pursue an
    investment in Proposition 12-compliant facilities, producers should
    expect to receive a premium that not only offsets the added costs but
    makes them no worse off than before the investment. Premiums should
    also be sufficient to make a producer indifferent between alternative
    housing systems.
        A study by economists at Iowa State University and the University
    of Minnesota analyzed the cost of constructing new facilities with
    increased square feet, similar to the requirements of Proposition 12,
    and used actual farm production data and industry reports to compare
    productivity and operating costs across styles of production.
        With significantly higher construction costs per sow and 15.5%
    higher operating expenses per weaned pig produced, the study found that
    to break even on investing in a 4,800 sow group housing unit with
    increased square feet per sow, producers would need to receive a
    premium of $4.67 to $7.93 per weaned pig, depending on the realized
    productivity impacts of increased square footage versus conventional
    group housing. To be indifferent between gestation stall housing and
    group housing with increased square footage, a producer would need to
    receive a premium of $14.93 to $19.58 on every weaned pig sold for 15
    years.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Schulz, L.L., Hadrich, J.C., (2023). An Economic Assessment of
    New Swine Gestation Facility Investment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is also important to recognize that this size of operation
    realizes scale efficiencies due to cost savings and management
    potential. The study notes that farms with cost advantages, i.e.,
    larger farms, will be better positioned to transition to Proposition
    12-like housing systems and will require lower relative premiums to be
    indifferent between stalls, conventional group, and Proposition 12-like
    housing.
    Figure 4: 15 Year Premiums Needed for a New 4,800 Head Sow Operation

        At the time of the study, the size and availability of Proposition
    12 premiums were largely unknown, and USDA reporting did not provide a
    disaggregated view of animal housing-related premiums in its Weekly
    Non-Carcass Merit Premium report. However, beginning in November 2023,
    USDA began reporting a separate category for ``Animal Confinement
    Legislation'' premiums, with values ranging from a low of $2.38 to a
    high of $14.13, with a simple average of $4.94 per hundred pounds.
    Assuming an average carcass weight of 205 pounds, these initially
    reported premiums translate to a range of $4.88 to $28.97 per head, or
    an average of $10.13 per head. The wide range of premium offerings
    could be an indication of the supply and demand situation for
    individual packers at the time, as well as the individual costs
    incurred by producers in supplying compliant hogs. Presently, premiums
    for Animal Confinement Legislation range from a low of $4.10 to a high
    of $13.14 per head with a simple average of $8.71.
        Importantly, the values estimated by Schulz and Hadrich (2023)
    hinge on the requirement that premiums be received for hogs marketed
    for the entire 15 year life of the investment. Not only does this
    exceed the standard length of marketing agreements between packers and
    producers, presenting significant risk to the returns on investment,
    but language contained in sample contracts within the USDA Swine
    Contract Library suggests that hog buyers retain the right to change
    contract terms if there are significant changes in definitions,
    industry practices, or standards established by specified states that
    would create a variance between what is required and what the producer
    is providing. In the current environment, there remains significant
    uncertainty around the future availability and sufficiency of these
    premiums if standards change or if other states adopt new requirements.
    Consumer Price Impacts
        Due to the higher cost of production at the farm and processor
    level, as well as higher segmentation costs across the supply chain, it
    was expected that Proposition 12 would result in higher pork prices for
    California consumers. A study by economists at University of California
    Davis predicted a long-run outcome of 7.7% higher pork prices and a
    6.3% decline in California's consumption of uncooked pork cuts,
    resulting in a $320 million hit to consumer welfare each year as
    Californians spend more but consume less pork.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Lee, H., Sexton, R. J., and Sumner, D.A. (2021). Voter
    Approved Proposition to Raise California Pork Prices. (ARE Update
    24(6): 5-8). University of California Giannini Foundation of
    Agricultural Economics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, the magnitude of price increases in California so far has
    been much greater than the long-run expected outcome. A study released
    in 2024 by economists at USDA's Office of the Chief Economist compared
    retail pork prices and volumes in California and the rest of the United
    States for a period preceding Proposition 12 (October 2019-June 2023)
    and for 8 months after its partial implementation date (July 2023-
    February 2024). After subtracting any price increases that were also
    observed in the rest of the United States, the study attributed the
    following prices increases in California to the impact of Proposition
    12 (also depicted in Figure 3 below): 41% increase in pork loin prices,
    17% increase in pork rib prices, 17% increase in pork shoulder prices,
    16% in bacon prices, and 20% increase in fresh ham prices.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Hawkins, H., Arita, A., and Meyer, S. (2024). Proposition 12
    Pork Retail Price Impacts on California Consumers. (ARE Update 27(3):
    5-8). University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
    Economics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 3: Change in Average Sales Price of Covered Pork Products, Pre-
            Proposition 12 (October 2019 to June 2023) vs. Post-Proposition
            12 (July 2023 to February 2024) \12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Hawkins, H., Arita, A., and Meyer, S. (2024). Proposition 12
    Pork Retail Price Impacts on California Consumers. (ARE Update 27(3):
    5-8). University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
    Economics.

        Overall, the report suggests a 20% average increase in the sales
    prices for pork products covered by Proposition 12 and minimal impacts
    on products not covered by the law, such as sausage. Unsurprisingly,
    the retail data also revealed a decline in pork volume sales in
    California and a 2-3% decline in California's share of national fresh
    pork sales.
        Retail scanner data compiled by Circana confirms that these trends
    have held up over subsequent periods. From July 2024 to June 2025, the
    second year of Proposition 12's partial implementation, prices for
    popular covered pork products in California were 24% higher on average,
    with a range of 12% to 33% higher across covered products, than they
    were in the year leading up to implementation (July 2022 to June
    2023).\13\ This compares to an average 3.6% increase for the entire
    United States over the same period. California also continues to
    consume less pork, both in terms of overall volume and as a percentage
    of U.S. sales.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Circana Omnimarket Point of Sale. (January 2022-June 2025).
    Dollar Sales and Volume Data for Pork Loins, Ribs, Shoulders, and Bacon
    in California and U.S. Total MULO+. All estimates and analysis based on
    Circana data are by author and not Circana.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Imposing higher costs with no change or enhancement in consumer
    demand yields losses in consumer welfare. Proposition 12 has been
    called an ``unfunded mandate,'' meaning voters approved the measure,
    but consumers have not demonstrated a willingness to pay the premium
    required to consume the same volume of pork products.
        Given the threat of additional states adopting similar measures, a
    study by Schulz and Tonsor (2024) examined various scenarios under
    which more states adopt Proposition 12-like regulations, requiring a
    greater percentage of the pork industry to adopt more costly production
    practices. While the magnitude of consumer losses will depend on farm
    adjustment costs and the percentage of the U.S. hog herd that must
    become compliant to maintain market access, a scenario where the entire
    U.S. herd must incur ``intermediate'' level adjustment costs results in
    a cumulative decline in U.S. consumer welfare of $41 billion over 15
    years.\14\ The study does not address instances where states adopt
    differing and conflicting regulations that would impose further costs
    not only on producers but across the pork supply chain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Schulz, L.L. and Tonsor, G.T. (2024). Evaluating the Economic
    Impacts of Proposition 12, Question 3, and Related Regulations on U.S.
    Consumers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While available data did not allow for an assessment of how
    households of varying income or pork consumption levels are impacted,
    the authors offer an expert opinion that lower-income, high pork-
    consuming households, which are more price sensitive and exposed to
    retail market changes, will bear a greater share of the consumer
    welfare losses.
    Industry Consolidation Concerns
        Compliance with Proposition 12 creates significant costs that are
    borne by California consumers and producers providing pork to the
    California market. As stated in Goodwin (2023), in the short run, there
    is likely to be bifurcation of the pork market whereby pork commands a
    premium in California. However, it is possible, particularly if other
    states adopt similar requirements, that high market segmentation costs
    may encourage widespread adoption of the standards in the long run,
    whether dictated by decisions at retail, distribution, processing, or
    at the pork packing level.\15\ This could impose costs on farms without
    the promise of sufficient premium and would hasten the exit of smaller,
    independent sow farm operations. An even more costly situation could
    arise if states adopt conflicting animal housing requirements,
    resulting in a 50 state patchwork that would impose even greater costs
    and inefficiencies on the pork supply chain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Goodwin, B.K. (2023). California's Proposition 12 and the
    Impacts on the Pork Industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For many reasons, Proposition 12 and the prospect of a 50 state
    patchwork of state regulations pose the greatest risks to small- and
    medium-sized hog farms across the country. As discussed previously,
    economies of scale allow a 5,000 head sow farm to make adjustments at a
    lower cost per pig than a 1,200 head sow farm. Large farms may also
    have greater options for diversification and enjoy more favorable terms
    of credit. Goodwin (2023) found that, based on USDA Economic Research
    Service (ERS) data, hog farms are typically more highly leveraged than
    other types of farms due to the substantial up-front capital investment
    that is required. Additionally, the return to equity on hog farms is
    usually progressively lower for smaller farms, suggesting small farms
    are likely to realize less favorable terms of credit and which may
    impact their ability to undertake significant capital investments.
    Lastly, surveys conducted and summarized in Goodwin (2023) revealed
    that segregation costs at the packing level likely also favor large hog
    producers. If processors choose to process compliant hogs on a certain
    day or time, large producers can deliver multiple loads at once,
    reducing costs for packers and impacting premiums paid.
    Conclusion
        Proposition 12 requires pork producers wishing to supply the
    California market to undertake significant investments and production
    changes that, absent a sufficient premium, leave them worse off
    financially. Packers, further processors, and other supply chain
    participants also face higher costs associated with segregation,
    tracing, and labeling compliant product. These costs are ultimately
    passed on to California consumers, who face fewer choices at the
    grocery store and significantly higher prices for covered products.
    Because Proposition 12 restricts consumer choice and imposes higher
    costs, it results in lower levels of pork consumption and ultimately
    reduced consumer welfare in California. Importantly, lower-income,
    higher pork-consuming population groups will be most sensitive to the
    impacts and will bear the brunt of welfare losses.
        Problems do not stop there. The Supreme Court's decision opens the
    door for other states to adopt similar measures--or worse, for each
    state to adopt its own conditions for selling pork within its borders.
    Whether raising pigs in a way that complies with Proposition 12 or not,
    U.S. pork producers across the country continue to face significant
    uncertainty surrounding the prospect of changing regulations or a
    state-by-state patchwork, the future availability and sufficiency of
    premium offerings, and the risk that investments made today will
    require modifications to maintain market access before a return is ever
    realized. Ultimately, the ability of other states to adopt their own
    Proposition 12-like measures threatens consolidation across the U.S.
    pork industry, as the largest industry participants will be the best
    equipped to comply.
        The National Pork Producers Council urges Congress to address the
    challenges created by Proposition 12 and to prevent a 50 state
    patchwork of conflicting sow housing regulations that would impose
    significant costs, inefficiencies, and welfare losses on U.S. producers
    and consumers.

        The Chairman. Ms. Cook, thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Cushman, please begin when you are ready.

              STATEMENT OF TRAVIS CUSHMAN, DEPUTY GENERAL
      COUNSEL, LITIGATION AND PUBLIC POLICY, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU
                      FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Cushman. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig,
    Members of the Committee, my name is Travis Cushman. I am the
    Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Public Policy at the
    American Farm Bureau Federation. I am honored to provide this
    testimony today on behalf of Farm Bureau members across the
    nation.
        Along with the National Pork Producers Council, I spent the
    better part of 4 years litigating Farm Bureau's challenge to
    California Proposition 12. Our legal challenge was based on a
    constitutional doctrine called the Dormant Commerce Clause. The
    doctrine states that because Congress has the exclusive power
    to regulate interstate commerce, states do not. In short,
    states are prohibited from substantially burdening interstate
    commerce through their own laws and regulations. For those
    looking for a deeper dive on the issue, I encourage you to read
    the Biden Administration's Supreme Court brief supporting our
    arguments.
        Farm Bureau's efforts resulted in a Supreme Court decision
    that is so convoluted, so confusing, and so contradictory that
    no one can articulate the state of the Dormant Commerce Clause
    today or how courts should proceed with similar claims. As you
    know, you need five of the nine justices to agree with you to
    win a case. Six justices agreed with our legal theory, and five
    agreed that we had established enough facts to win on that
    claim. An easy win, right? Not quite.
        Because of the way we count votes at the Supreme Court, our
    farmers lost. The resulting fractured 5-4 decision lacks a
    unifying rationale. The makeup of the four dissenting justices
    was also remarkable. This is the only case where Justice
    Jackson and Chief Justice Roberts have ever dissented together.
    In 2023, 25 percent of Chief Justice Roberts and half of
    Justice Kavanaugh's dissents were in our case.
        I want to emphasize, six justices from across the
    ideological spectrum agreed that the Constitution protects
    against states balkanizing the country's markets, and five
    agreed that we had established such a claim. In the aftermath
    of the case, judges have disagreed on how to interpret the
    ruling, and legal scholars have called the result a paradox and
    a mess but a good deal more troubling than the ordinary mess.
        And that is what leaves us in the legal quagmire we are
    here to address today. One thing is clear from the case. The
    United States Congress is the branch of government with
    responsibility now to address the problem of states imposing
    their production laws on other states.
        Farmers today face a growing risk of being subject to
    overlapping or conflicting mandates from multiple states. While
    Prop 12 requires 24 square feet of space per sow, another state
    could shift the requirement after investments have been made to
    25 square feet or 30 square feet, causing what Secretary
    Vilsack referred to in front of this Committee in February 2024
    as ``chaos in the marketplace,'' or as Secretary Rollins stated
    at a recent House appropriations hearing as ``not
    sustainable.'' This forces farmers into the impossible position
    of retrofitting their barns, which they may not be able to
    afford to do, and go against their own animal husbandry
    experience and advice of their veterinarians.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the American
    Farm Bureau Federation appreciates your leadership in
    addressing the turmoil created by Proposition 12 and the
    bipartisan farm bill that passed out of this Committee last
    Congress. When a single state can condition access to its
    market on compliance with production mandates that override the
    judgment of veterinarians, farmers, and experts nationwide,
    Congress must act.
        This is not a theoretical concern. It is already harming
    farmers, confusing the courts, and threatening the viability of
    a national food system. The language that this Committee passed
    in the 2024 Farm Bill restores clarity, restores Congressional
    authority over interstate commerce, and protects both producers
    and consumers from a patchwork of conflicting mandates. The
    Farm Bureau looks forward to working with Congress to pass a
    farm bill soon that will address the interstate commerce issue.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cushman follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Travis Cushman, Deputy General Counsel,
        Litigation and Public Policy, American Farm Bureau Federation,
                                Washington, D.C.
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the
    Committee, my name is Travis Cushman. I am the Deputy General Counsel,
    Litigation and Public Policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation
    (AFBF), and I am honored to provide this testimony on behalf of Farm
    Bureau members across this country.
        Along with the National Pork Producers Council, I spent the better
    part of 4 years examining the harmful effects of California Proposition
    12. My legal efforts on the case helped elevate it to the Supreme
    Court. Our legal challenge was based on a Constitutional doctrine
    called the Dormant Commerce Clause. The doctrine states that, because
    Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, states do not.
    In short, states are prohibited from substantially burdening interstate
    commerce through their own laws and regulations.
        Unfortunately, the high court's decision is so convoluted, so
    confusing, and so contradictory that no one can (honestly) articulate
    the state of the Dormant Commerce Clause or how courts should proceed
    with similar claims. As you know, you need five of the nine justices to
    agree with you to win a case. Six justices agreed with our legal
    theory. Five agreed that we had established enough facts to win on that
    legal theory. An easy win, right?
        Not quite. In a fractured 5-4 decision, three justices found that
    the Constitution did not support our reading of the Dormant Commerce
    Clause, and two justices agreed with our reading but found we had not
    alleged sufficient facts. But one of the justices who disagreed with
    our theory of the Dormant Commerce Clause wrote separately to target
    the justices who found we had not alleged the correct factual
    predicate, arguing that we clearly had done so if such a legal theory
    was correct. And then four justices dissented, agreeing with our legal
    theory and factual pleadings.
        The makeup of the four dissenting justices was also remarkable. In
    2023, Chief Justice Roberts dissented in four cases and Justice
    Kavanaugh dissented in only two cases. A quarter of Chief Justice
    Roberts' and half of Justice Kavanaugh's dissents were in our case. In
    addition to Justice Alito, Justice Jackson also joined the dissent.
    This is the only case where Justice Jackson has ever been in the
    dissent with Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Jackson has been in the
    dissent with Justice Kavanaugh only one other time, and with Justice
    Alito only two other times.
        And again I want to emphasize: six justices from across the
    ideological spectrum agreed that the Constitution recognizes the threat
    of states balkanizing the country's markets and protects those out-of-
    state interests, and five agreed that we had established such a claim.
    And that's what leaves us in the legal quagmire we are here to address
    today.
        One thing is clear from the case: Congress is the branch with
    responsibility now to address the problem of states imposing their
    production laws on other states. The ball is in your court.
        Below I discuss the history of the problem, the case law, and the
    proposed legislation.
    Ballot Initiatives that Attack Animal Agriculture
        California Proposition 12 (Prop 12) was a ballot initiative
    promoted by animal rights groups that passed in 2018. Voters were
    offered the following choice:

    (Highlights added). It is hard to blame an average voter for checking
    either ``yes'' or ``no,'' based on this information alone. Left unsaid
    was that the ``minimum requirements'' established were not created
    based on the generally-accepted views of experts in animal welfare and
    human safety or the experience of farmers. In fact, at the time, nearly
    no farms followed the standards set forth by Prop 12. Also unsaid was
    that nearly no pork comes from California, meaning that farms across
    the country would become subject to regulations and inspections based
    on California law despite that California had no domestic pork
    industry.
        Relying on ballot initiatives in this way--instead of engaging in
    the legislative process, where factfinding and deliberative debate
    occurs--has become a common tactic of animal rights groups to enact
    laws that attack animal agriculture. For example:

       California Proposition 2 was passed in 2008 \1\ and set new
            standards for egg laying hens that resulted in smaller- and
            mid-sized farms closing and losing market share to larger,
            vertically integrated operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Proposition 2 applied to California farms. Two years later, the
    California legislature passed SB 1437, which exported Prop 2 to out-of-
    state farms.

       Massachusetts Question 3 passed in 2016 as a ballot
            initiative that similarly set production standards for farms
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            across the country for sows, veal calves, and egg-laying hens.

       Sonoma County Measure J was on the ballot in 2024 and sought
            to ban and phase out Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
            (CAFOs). The measure failed.

       Denver Ordinance 309 was on the ballot in 2024 and sought to
            ban the city's sole meat processing facility (Superior Farms)
            and future meat processing facilities. The measure failed.

        This trend reflects a deliberate strategy by well-funded interest
    groups to bypass legislative deliberation and impose ideologically-
    driven mandates that disregard science, regional diversity, and the
    practical realities of food production.
    Bans Raise Significant Animal Welfare, Human Health, and Farm
            Sustainability Concerns
        Beyond the bypassing of the legislative process, allowing a single
    state to impose its production preferences on other states raises
    significant concerns for animal welfare, human health, and farm
    sustainability.
    Animal Welfare
        The American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) filed an
    amicus curiae brief in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross
    that delves into the animal welfare concerns of laws like Prop 12.\2\
    AASV's mission, amongst other things, is to ``protect and promote the
    health and well-being of pigs'' and to ``advocate science-based
    approaches to veterinary, industry, and public health issues.'' \3\
    Accordingly, AASV has ``a direct interest in the welfare of pigs and
    the safety of pork.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Brief of American Association of Swine Veterinarians as Amicus
    Curiae in Support of Petitioners [hereinafter AASV Amicus Brief], NPPC
    v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023), https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/
    21/21-468/228285/20220617124311471_21-468%20Amicus
    %20BOM.pdf.
        \3\ American Association of Swine Veterinarians, ``AASV Mission,''
    https://www.aasv.org/, last visited July 20, 2025.
        \4\ AASV Amicus Brief, supra note 2, at 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As AASV explained, ``There is a strong scientific consensus that,
    in order to maximize animal welfare, the choice between individual
    stalls and group pens must be made on a case-by-case basis.'' \5\ ``By
    legally barring one option, Proposition 12 is likely to harm animal
    welfare rather than help it.'' \6\ ``The best solution for animal
    welfare is for each team of farmers and veterinarians to have
    flexibility to determine the housing arrangements that are best for
    their animals in their circumstances. Because Proposition 12 would take
    away that flexibility, it places at risk the well-being of many
    animals.'' \7\ AASV notes that Proposition 12 would push sows into a
    housing system that is associated with over 15% of sows receiving
    serious wounds.\8\ These conclusions are consistent with farmers'
    personal experiences across the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Id. at 3; see also id. at 2 (``A well-established body of
    scientific literature assessing biological metrics of sow welfare
    individual stalls and group pens shows that both housing methods can be
    important tools in managing a healthy herd. Categorically banning one
    of them, as Proposition 12 does, will likely harm rather than improve
    animal well-being.'').
        \6\ Id. at 14.
        \7\ Id. at 22.
        \8\ Id. at 9-10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Human Health
        The AASV amicus easily discredits any contention that laws like
    Proposition 12 promote human health. To the contrary, this ``contention
    is not supported by scientific evidence and is not plausible in light
    of the established practices of pig farms.'' \9\ ``[T]here is no
    evidence that the use of individual stalls for sows poses any risk to
    human health, and there are several objective reasons why it would be
    unlikely to do so.'' \10\ Of course, the clear implication of this is
    also that Prop 12 provides no benefit to human health.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Id. at 2.
        \10\ Id. at 3; see also id. at 19 (``[T]here is no scientific
    evidence to support a claim that requiring group pens for pregnant sows
    would serve that goal, and there are multiple scientific reasons to
    doubt such a claim.'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Indeed, ``[T]here is a large-scale regime of regulations and
    inspections in place to deal with that very possibility.'' \11\ For
    example, the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) ``establishes an
    elaborate system of inspecting live animals and carcasses in order to
    prevent the shipment of impure, unwholesome, and unfit meat and meat-
    food products.'' Nat'l Meat Ass'n v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452, 455-456
    (2012). ``FMIA requires all slaughterhouses to comply with the
    standards for human handling and slaughter of animals set out in the
    Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958.'' Id. USDA's Food Safety and
    Inspection Service (FSIS) administers ``the FMIA to promote its dual
    goals of safe meat and humane slaughter.'' Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Id. at 22.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Farm Sustainability Concerns
        Allowing one state to dictate livestock housing requirements to the
    rest of the country jeopardizes the sustainability of thousands of
    independent family farms. Pig farmers, particularly small- and mid-
    sized farmers, are already under tremendous pressure from inflation,
    input costs, and labor shortages. Laws like Proposition 12 only
    intensify these burdens by threatening further consolidation among pig
    farms, with only the largest farms able to compete.
        Retrofitting a sow barn to comply with California's specific
    mandates is very difficult (and ultimately may require building a new
    facility). Building a new barn compliant with Prop 12 can cost upwards
    of $3,500 per sow.\12\ That's not just expensive--it's prohibitive for
    many family farms. Meanwhile, the largest farms--especially those
    already vertically integrated--can adjust more easily, leading to
    increased concentration and reduced market access for regional or
    independent producers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Pam Lewison, The impact of California's Proposition 12 in
    increasing national production costs and food prices, Washington Policy
    Center, at 6 (Nov. 2023), https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/library/
    doclib/Lewison-Prop-12.pdf (``Industry estimates for adding space or
    retrofitting existing penning throughout the United States suggests the
    adoption of Proposition 12 regulations will cost approximately $3,500
    per sow.''). See also Ben Nuelle, Pork producers brace for California's
    new sow housing rules, Agri-Pulse (Aug. 11, 2021), https://www.agri-
    pulse.com/articles/16277-pork-producers-prepare-for-california-hog-
    housing-rule-implementation; Barry K. Goodwin, California's Proposition
    12 and its Impacts on the Pork Industry, at 6-7 (May 13, 2021), https:/
    /www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Goodwin-and-Prop-12-Final.pdf
    (research report furnished to the National Pork Producers Council that
    provides a per sow estimate for compliance that costs ``considerably
    more per animal'' for smaller operations).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Currently, farmers are at risk of other states enacting conflicting
    regulations that affect their farms or ratcheting up the requirements
    after they've made expensive changes to animal housing to comply with
    Prop 12. And farmers are powerless if these requirements are at odds
    with the advice of their veterinarians or their own experience caring
    for their animals.
    Legal Challenges to State Laws Exporting Production Standards to Other
            States
        The Commerce Clause vests Congress with the power to ``regulate
    Commerce . . . and among the several states.'' U.S. Const. art. I,  8,
    cl. 3. The dormant Commerce Clause is a legal doctrine inferred from
    the Congress Clause that prohibits states from enacting laws that
    discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the
    absence of Federal legislation.
        The extent to which the dormant Commerce Clause restricts states
    from burdening interstate commerce is the subject of great debate,
    especially after NPPC v. Ross. Courts have disagreed on how to
    interpret the ruling \13\ and legal scholars have called the result a
    ``paradox,'' \14\ and ``a mess, but it's a good deal more troubling
    than the ordinary mess.'' \15\ The one point of agreement is that there
    is no agreement on how courts should handle the issue of states
    exporting animal farming regulations into other states.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ See, e.g., Iowa Pork Producers Ass'n v. Bonta, No. 22-55336,
    2024 WL 3158532 (9th Cir. June 25, 2024) (Ninth Circuit judges
    disagreeing about the impact and meaning of NPPC v. Ross).
        \14\ See Bradley Joondeph, The `Horizontal Separation of Powers'
    After National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 61 San Diego L. Rev. 45,
    73 (2024), available at https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol61/iss1/3/
    (``[T]he Court's judgment in NPPC regarding the producers' undue-burden
    claim represents a bit of a paradox. And the oddity of this result
    indicates that this portion of this result indicates that this portion
    of the NPPC's judgment may mean nothing going forward--other than that
    California is entitled to enforce Proposition 12.'').
        \15\ See David Post, Another Voting Paradox Case (Pork Division),
    The Volokh Conspiracy (May 16, 2023), https://reason.com/volokh/2023/
    05/16/another-voting-paradox-case-pork-division/.
        \16\ See Will Baude & Daniel Epps, Break the Fourth Wall, Divided
    Argument (May 18, 2023) (noting that it is unclear how courts should
    interpret the case).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Below is a summary of the dormant Commerce Clause challenges to
    California Prop 2/AB 1437, Prop 12, and Massachusetts Question 3.

       Missouri v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2017), cert.
            denied, 137 S. Ct. 2188

         Six states challenged AB 1437. The Ninth Circuit found
                that the states lacked standing to bring the claim.

       Missouri v. California, No. 220148, 586 U.S. 1065 (2019)
            (motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied).

         Thirteen states filed an original jurisdiction claim
                to the Supreme Court challenging SB 1437. The Supreme Court
                denied the states leave to file a complaint.

       North American Meat Institute v. Becerra, 825 Fed. Appx. 518
            (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied 141 S. Ct. 2854 (2021)

         The North American Meat Association (NAMI) challenged
                Prop 12. The Ninth Circuit held that Prop 12 does not
                violate the dormant Commerce Clause because it ``does not
                impact an industry that is inherently national or requires
                a uniform system of regulation'' and ``precludes sales of
                meat products produced by a specified method, rather than
                imposing a burden on producers based on their geographical
                origin.'' Id. at 520.

       National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023)

         AFBF and NPPC challenged Prop 12. In a fractured
                decision, the Supreme Court found that Prop 12 does not
                violate the dormant Commerce Clause.

         The decision lacks a controlling rationale, leading to
                confusion by courts and scholars. See, e.g., Iowa Pork
                Producers Ass'n v. Bonta, No. 22-55336, 2024 WL 3158532, at
                *2-3 (9th Cir. June 25, 2024) (the majority ``did not agree
                upon a `single rationale' and there is no opinion in that
                case that `can be reasonably be described as a logical
                subset of the other.''' ``Because the Court did not agree
                upon a single rationale for affirming, and neither of the
                two rationales is a `logical subset' of the other, only the
                specific result in NPPC is binding on lower Federal
                courts.'' (Citations omitted)).

         Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett would
                functionally limit the dormant Commerce Clause to prohibit
                states discriminating against commerce from other states
                and jettison the prohibition on states unduly burdening
                interstate commerce.

         Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would keep the dormant
                Commerce Clause prohibition on unduly burdening interstate
                commerce, but held the petitioners failed to plead
                sufficient facts.

         Justice Barrett wrote separately to rebut Justices
                Sotomayor and Kagan, holding that the petitioners easily
                pled a substantial burden on interstate commerce. However,
                she did not think the dormant Commerce Clause provided
                relief.

         Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh,
                and Jackson dissented, holding that the dormant Commerce
                Clause does prohibit states unduly burdening interstate
                Commerce and that the petitioners easily pled facts
                establishing a claim.

           The justices held that courts should ``consider whether,
                by effectively re-
                  quiring compliance by farmers who do not even wish to
                ship their product
                  into California, Proposition 12 has a nationwide reach.'
                '' 598 U.S. at 400.

           In addition, petitioners allege that Prop 12 will
                produce ``worse health out-
                  comes'' and ``spread pathogens and disease.'' Id. at 400.
                ``These consequen-
                  tial threats to animal welfare and industry practice are
                difficult to quantify
                  and are not susceptible to categorization as mere costs
                of compliance.'' Id.
                  at 401.

           ``[P]etitioners here allege that Proposition 12 will
                force compliance on farm-
                  ers who do not wish to sell into the California market,
                exacerbate health
                  issues in the national pig population, and undercut
                established operational
                  practices.'' Id. at 401.

         Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate dissent, holding
                that ``California's novel and far-reaching regulation could
                provide a blueprint for other states. California's law thus
                may foreshadow a new era where states shutter their markets
                to goods produced in a way that offends their moral or
                policy preferences--and in doing so, effectively force
                other states to regulate in accordance with those
                idiosyncratic state demands. That is not the Constitution
                the Framers adopted in Philadelphia in 1787.'' Id. at 407.

       Iowa Pork Producers Ass. v. Bonta, No, 22-55336, 2024 WL
            3158532 (9th Cir. June 25, 2024), cert. denied No. 24-728, 2025
            WL 1787818 (U.S. June 30, 2025)

         Iowa Pork Producers Association challenged Prop 12.
                The Ninth Circuit, interpreting NPPC v. Ross, held that,
                due to the fractured rationale, the Supreme Court decision
                only controls its specific result.

         However, the judges disagreed about the impact and
                meaning of NPPC v. Ross.

       Massachusetts Restaurant Association v. Healey, 4:22-cv-
            11245 (D. Mass)

         Several trade associations challenged Massachusetts
                Question 3.

         Under the regulations implementing Question 3,
                Massachusetts prohibited the transshipment of pork through
                the state into other states. This would have prevented the
                movement of pork into Maine or New Hampshire while also
                threatening to cut off supplies to restaurants and grocers
                in parts of Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont
                who relied on distribution chains that ran through
                Massachusetts. Massachusetts entered into a consent
                agreement with the plaintiffs agreeing not to enforce the
                transshipment prohibition.

       Indiana v. Massachusetts, 586 U.S. 1065 (2019)

         Thirteen states filed an original jurisdiction claim
                to the Supreme Court challenging Massachusetts Question 3.
                The Supreme Court denied the states leave to file a
                complaint.

       Triumph Foods v. Campbell, 1:23-cv-11671 (D. Mass)

         Several farm groups challenged Massachusetts Question
                3. The district court rejected the dormant commerce clause
                claim under NPPC v. Ross. 715 F.Supp.3d 143 (D. Mass.
                2024). The court also rejected the Federal preemption
                claim. 742 F.Supp.3d 63 (D. Mass. 2024).

         The case is currently on appeal to the First Circuit.
                Amongst other things, the petitioners argue that the
                district court failed to address several constitutional
                issues, including their claims under the Privileges and
                Immunities Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Due
                Process Clause, and Import-Export Clause.

       United States v. California, No. 2:25-cv-6230 (C.D. Cal.)

         The United States challenged California Prop 2 and
                Prop 12 as to their application to egg-laying hens. The
                United States claims that the Egg Products Inspection Act
                (EPIA) preempts Prop 2 and Prop 12's regulations on the
                quality and condition of eggs and the labeling of eggs. See
                21 U.S.C.  1052(b) (``For eggs which have moved or are
                moving in interstate or foreign commerce, . . . no state or
                local jurisdiction may require the use of standards of
                quality, condition, weight, quantity, or grade which are in
                addition to or different from the official Federal
                standards . . . Labeling, packaging, or ingredient
                requirements, in addition to or different than those made
                under [EPIA], the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
                the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, may not be imposed by
                any state or local jurisdiction.'').

    As the record of litigation makes clear, the judiciary has reached an
    impasse. It is now incumbent upon Congress to provide clarity.
    Congress Should Fix the Problem and Has the Authority to Do So
        Given the difficulty the courts have had resolving states imposing
    their preferred farming practices onto other states, Congress should
    address the problem. And Congress clearly has the authority to do so.
    Indeed, Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett's chief concern in NPPC
    v. Ross was that the judiciary should not overstep and abrogate
    Congress's delegated authority. ``Everyone agrees that Congress may
    seek to exercise this power to regulate the interstate trade of pork,
    much as it has done with various other products. Everyone agrees, too,
    that Congressional enactments may preempt conflicting state laws.''
    NPPC v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356, 368 (2023). Congress ``is better equipped
    than this Court to identify and assess all the pertinent economic and
    political interests at play across the country.'' Id. at 383.
        Farmers today face a growing risk of being subject to overlapping
    or conflicting mandates from multiple states. While Prop 12 requires 24
    square feet of space per sow another state could shift the
    requirement--after investments have been made--to 25 square feet. Or
    states may enact conflicting standards. This forces farmers into a
    Hobson's choice of retrofitting their barns (which they may not be able
    to afford) or going against their own animal husbandry experience and
    the advice of veterinarians. Only Congress can fix this problem.
    Section 12007 Narrowly Fixes the Problem
        Proposed Section 12007 narrowly fixes the problem of states
    imposing their preferred farming practices onto other states, such that
    no single state can dictate to producers in other states how to raise
    their animals. Importantly, it does not prohibit states from continuing
    to regulate farms within their borders or prohibit farmers from
    adopting the standards set by Prop 2, Prop 12, or Question 3. It
    similarly does not upset existing Federal regulations of farms and food
    production across the country. See, e.g., the Animal Health Protection
    Act, Swine Health Protection Act, Federal Meat Inspection Act, Clean
    Water Act, Clean Air Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and
    Occupational Safety & Health Act.
        Proposed Section 12007 is significantly narrower in scope than
    previous legislation, such as the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression
    (EATS) Act or the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA). Those earlier
    bills would have preempted regulation of the production and
    manufacturing practices for all agricultural products outside of the
    regulating state.
        In contrast, Section 12007 only preempts states regulating the
    production (raising) practices of livestock on out-of-state farms. This
    is much more specifically targeted to the issues currently facing
    small- and medium-sized family farms across the country.
        To reiterate, the proposal does not make it illegal to farm in
    conformance with Proposition 12. It simply ensures that farmers in
    Pennsylvania, Minnesota, North Carolina, Illinois, or Iowa aren't
    forced to farm by the law of a state they do not live or vote in. That
    is the correct balance between state and Federal authority--and the
    only way to preserve a functioning interstate agricultural economy.
    Conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the American Farm Bureau
    Federation appreciates your leadership in addressing the chaos created
    by Proposition 12. When a single state can condition access to its
    market on compliance with production mandates that override the
    judgments of veterinarians, farmers, and USDA experts nationwide,
    Congress must act.
        This is not a theoretical concern--it is already harming farmers,
    confusing the courts, and threatening the viability of a national food
    system. This proposed legislation restores clarity, reasserts
    Congressional authority over interstate commerce, and protects both
    farmers and consumers from a patchwork of conflicting mandates.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
    answering your questions.

        The Chairman. Mr. Cushman, thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        Ms. Rocha, please begin when you are ready.

    STATEMENT OF LILLY ROCHA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LATINO RESTAURANT
                      ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES, CA

        Ms. Rocha. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
    Craig, and all the Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    invitation to testify before you today.
        My name is Lilly Rocha. I am a lifelong Angeleno and the
    Executive Director of the Latino Restaurant Association based
    in Los Angeles. The LRA represents thousands of small, family-
    owned Latino restaurants who are the cornerstone of their
    communities, primarily in southern California, but also
    nationally. The LRA is a member of the Food Equity Alliance, a
    California coalition fighting for accessible and affordable
    food for all.
        I am also the President of the Latino Food Industry
    Association, a national association that serves grocers,
    distributors, food service providers, vendors, and other
    important businesses in Latino markets across the industry. We
    also host the Latino Food Industry Trade Show, Trade Expo, the
    largest convention for our industry, set for October 13 and 14
    in beautiful Long Beach, California. You are all invited, happy
    to host anyone who would like to come out.
        I am here today to explain the harm Proposition 12 inflicts
    on minority-owned businesses and low-income families. Harm is
    what Prop 12 has caused, smashing like a wrecking ball the
    livelihoods of small restaurants and the communities we serve.
    By disrupting supply chains and driving up the cost of
    culturally vital foods like pork, it has brought economic
    devastation to families already stretched thin. This law's
    requirements, costly segregation, and certification processes
    are a death sentence for small businesses operating on razor-
    thin margins.
        The restaurants I represent serve working-class
    neighborhoods that can't absorb skyrocketing prices. In
    addition, Prop 12 is the most recent of many costly regulations
    that these small businesses, in particular restaurants, are
    being asked to absorb. Pork loins are up 41 percent, bacon 16
    percent. A carnitas taco, once $1.50, now costs $5 to $6,
    pricing out loyal customers who rely on these meals not just
    for sustenance but for cultural connection.
        Our restaurants face a brutal choice. Raise prices and lose
    customers, shrink portions and sacrifice quality, or remove
    pork dishes entirely, erasing cultural traditions that define
    our identity. This is not a hypothetical. This is actually
    happening today.
        For our Latino restaurants, carnitas are not just a meal.
    They are part of our heritage. Latino communities are top
    consumers of pork in this country. Over-regulation that takes
    food off the plate risks alienating communities and driving
    businesses toward closure. This isn't a menu change. It is a
    cultural loss.
        Some claim the market has adjusted to Prop 12, but that is
    a fantasy spun by those blind to the struggles of small
    businesses and working-class families in California. National
    chains can leverage their resources and cost advantages to
    secure compliant pork. However, pork prices are still going up.
    My members, of which 65 percent own less than ten locations,
    are small family-run restaurants and grocers that don't have
    that luxury. They can't negotiate bulk contracts or spread
    costs across nationwide operations.
        Worse, compliant pork is often impossible for them to
    source. The small independent distributors they rely on, unlike
    those serving big chains, can't secure steady supplies. Many
    small businesses are forced to buy pork at retail from the very
    chains they compete against, paying inflated prices and marking
    up prices just to survive. This vicious cycle erodes profits,
    threatens closures, and raises costs for struggling
    communities.
        In my opinion, Prop 12 wasn't the will of all consumers. It
    was bankrolled by those with an agenda who leveraged the
    convoluted ballot measure process where California voters could
    not have known all of the impacts. Former USDA Secretary Tom
    Vilsack and current Secretary Brooke Rollins have warned of
    supply chain chaos, and they are right. Sales are down and
    prices are up.
        Without intervention, this law will continue to dismantle
    the cultural and economic fabric of communities, leaving
    families without access to their heritage and businesses on the
    brink of collapse.
        Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I am
    very happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rocha follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Lilly Rocha, Executive Director, Latino
                    Restaurant Association, Los Angeles, CA
        The U.S. economy has long benefited from the sheer size and
    influence of the Latino consumer segment. With an estimated 65 million
    Latinos representing nearly 20% of the U.S. population, Latinos possess
    significant economic purchasing power. The Latino community includes
    entrepreneurial leaders, driving job creation and fueling economic
    development in their communities and across the nation. Foremost among
    these contributions is the thriving Latino and Hispanic foods sector,
    which not only provides jobs and business opportunities but also serves
    as a source of cultural pride, nourishment, and community connection.
        Mexican food, in particular, has surged in popularity; today,
    approximately one in every ten restaurants in America serves Mexican
    cuisine. While enjoyed nationwide, nearly \1/4\ of all Mexican
    restaurants are concentrated in California, with Los Angeles alone
    accounting for 30% of the state's total. Predominantly small, family-
    owned, and affordably priced, these restaurants are especially vital to
    the working-class neighborhoods in which they operate.
        It's important to note that Latinos, particularly Mexican
    Americans, are not newcomers to the region. Many families have lived in
    California and the greater Southwest for generations, long before these
    areas became part of the United States. Their deep roots and cultural
    traditions are woven into the very fabric of the state, and their small
    businesses are more than just economic drivers, they are enduring
    expressions of heritage and resilience. Yet it is precisely these, and
    other small ethnic establishments, that have been disproportionately
    harmed by California's Proposition 12, bearing the heaviest costs of
    this misguided and destructive policy.
    Witness Background
        My name is Lilly Rocha and I am the Executive Director of the
    Latino Restaurant Association (LRA). Since our start the LRA has been a
    beacon for Latino culinary entrepreneurs. From the vibrant streets of
    Los Angeles to nationwide acclaim, we've grown together with the rise
    in popularity of Latino foods into a powerhouse business network fueled
    by passion, community, and a zest for flavor.
        Headquartered in Los Angeles, the LRA represents the thousands of
    mostly small, family owned and operated Latino restaurants and related
    businesses across the country. We grew out of the vibrant community in
    Southern California, where the majority of our members continue to
    operate and serve their communities today. But as America's taste of
    Latino culture and flavors expands, we have seen our footprint grow as
    well. LRA now has a presence not just in Los Angeles, but throughout
    California and across the entire country with dedicated community hubs
    in Chicago, Houston and New York to serve Latino entrepreneurs and the
    growing sectors there. LRA promotes and supports restaurateurs, small
    businesses and our entire community to ensure the equitable economic
    growth of the sector.
        LRA is a founding member of the Food Equity Alliance (FEA), a
    broad, California-based coalition of grocery stores, restaurants,
    retailers, business associations, food processors, and consumer
    advocates. FEA's membership reflects the full diversity of California's
    ethnic and minority communities, alongside restaurants, grocers, and
    other retailers. The Alliance was formed to advocate for the
    communities most burdened by the implementation of Proposition 12. As
    part of this coalition, we work closely with organizations to promote
    equitable food access. In the past, FEA has specifically highlighted
    how Proposition 12 disproportionately harms minority-owned businesses
    and low-income communities by creating supply chain disruptions and
    driving up the cost of culturally significant foods like pork. FEA
    continues to champion the interests of its constituents, particularly
    small Latino and Asian owned restaurants and grocery stores, and the
    neighborhoods they serve.
        In addition to serving as the executive director of LRA, I have
    also recently been reelected President of the Latino Food Industry
    Association (LFIA), which advocates on behalf of all Latinos throughout
    the food industry, including grocers, distributors food service and
    both retail and street vendors. Among these efforts is assisting in the
    production of the Latino Food Industry Trade Expo, the largest business
    growth event for the Latino food service and retail industry.
        I am here today on behalf of the thousands of small, family-owned,
    and predominantly minority-owned businesses across California, whether
    restaurants, grocers, distributors, or the customers they serve, who
    continue to face significant economic harm from Proposition 12. These
    businesses, many run by first and second generation immigrant families,
    play a vital role in preserving cultural heritage, providing affordable
    food for all, and creating economic opportunity for the 65% of
    Californians who are of Latino and Asian descent. I am here to testify
    about the devastating impact Proposition 12 has had on these businesses
    and their communities, and to urge Congress to address the law's
    unintended consequences: consequences that now threaten food equity,
    cultural identity, and the economic survival of countless American
    families.
    Cultural Significance of Pork in Hispanic and Asian Communities
        Pork is not just a protein, it is a culinary staple and cultural
    connector within Latino and Asian communities. The absence or
    unaffordability of pork severs important cultural and familial ties.
    For many of the 65% of Californians of Latino or Asian descent, pork
    based dishes are not just food but a link to heritage, often prepared
    for family gatherings and celebrations. For Latinos that could be
    Carnitas, Pupusas de chicharron, or Lechona. For Asian's it might be
    Korean Samgyeopsal, Filipino Lechon, or any multitude of Chinese dishes
    from dumplings and pork fried rice to Char Siu.
        These dishes, passed down through generations, are vital for
    cultural continuity but also for helping to feed the over three million
    food-insecure households in California, including more than 1.25
    million children living in poverty in the state.\1\ Proposition 12's
    impact threatens to sever these traditions, forcing families to forgo
    culturally significant meals or turn to less nutritious alternatives,
    undermining both cultural identity and food security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Background on California Proposition 12
        California Proposition 12, fully implemented on January 1, 2024,
    after being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2023, establishes
    stringent animal welfare standards for pork, eggs, and veal sold in the
    state. While Proposition 12 aims to improve animal welfare, it has
    sparked significant disruption to the communities I represent due to
    its economic and cultural implications, particularly for small, family
    owned businesses. Despite being the nation's largest agricultural
    state, California doesn't produce any pork. However, it consumes about
    13% of the nation's pork. The law's requirements affect out of state
    pig farmers and have led to significant supply chain disruptions and
    price increases.
        Overall, retail pork prices in California have risen by an average
    of 20% since July 2023, with specific cuts like pork loins increasing
    by 41%. These changes disproportionately burden minority communities,
    particularly Hispanic and Asian families, who make up roughly 65% of
    California's population and rely heavily on pork as a cultural and
    nutritional staple.
        This is not a surprise. In 2021, as we were first learning about
    Proposition 12's impacts, the FEA commissioned the Hatamiya Group to
    undertake a study on the likely impact that Prop 12 would have on our
    communities. Mr. Hatamiya is a well respected economist in California,
    having served as both the Administrator of USDA's Agricultural
    Marketing Service and the Foreign Agricultural Service under President
    Bill Clinton. He was later appointed by California Gov. Gray Davis to
    serve as Secretary of the California Technology, Trade and Commerce
    Agency.
        At the time he concluded that:

              ``Proposition 12 will result in greater consumer expenditures
            on pork and/or lower demand for the various pork products.
            Increased pork producers would have the combined negative
            impact of greater financial burden on California pork consumers
            and lower demand for pork products on pork producers. Moreover,
            more market access restrictions due to Prop 12 regulations
            would further limit available supply into California, thereby
            driving up pork prices for all consumers.
              More specifically, the negative financial burden falls
            largely on the diverse ethnic consumers and communities that
            make up California, with pork being an important source of
            protein for African American, Asian American, and Hispanic
            households, businesses, and restaurants.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Hatamiya Group, Analysis of Economic Impact of Proposition 12
    on Pork Pricing and Consumption in California (June 11, 2021).

        Three years later, following the Supreme Court's 2023 decision
    upholding Proposition 12, Mr. Hatamiya revisited his study to better
    understand the direct impacts of Proposition 12. Relying on data from
    the United States Department of Agriculture, he found that Prop 12 had
    caused major disruption to the marketplace for pork in California,
    increasing prices significantly, on average nearly 20% with prices for
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    loins increasing 41%. Worse, for our communities he noted that:

              ``43.8% of all California pork consumers are Millennials and
            Gen Z. Also, the vast majority of California pork consumers
            (63.5%) are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian and
            other. Not only are California pork consumers younger and more
            ethnically diverse than all U.S. pork consumers, but there is
            also a larger percentage of low-income California pork
            consumers than the rest of the U.S. (25.5%). Therefore, the
            burden of higher retail pork prices in California falls mainly
            upon the younger, diverse, and lower income consumers across
            the state.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Hatamiya Group, Reanalysis of Economic Impact of Proposition 12
    on Pork Pricing and Consumption in California After Implementation
    (March 29, 2024).

        Proposition 12 is not something that the people of California
    understood when it was passed. It was, and remains, a pet project of
    the very wealthy, financed by the Silicon Valley billionaires and
    Hollywood stars who can afford it but who will not be burdened by the
    consequences of the law. As others have noted in the past, the richest
    20% spend approximately as much on food in a year as the poorest 20%
    earn.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-
    detail?chartId=58372.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Food spending and share of after-tax income spent on food across U.S.
            households, 2023

              Note: U.S. households were sorted from lowest to highest
            after-tax income, and then divided into five equal groups, or
            quintiles.
              Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the
            U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer
            Expenditure Survey, 2023.
    Economic Devastation for Small Businesses
        Proposition 12's requirements have created ``massive disruptions''
    in supply chains, particularly for small businesses unable to manage
    costly segregation and certification processes. The small, family-owned
    restaurants that I represent operate on razor-thin margins, serving
    working class communities that cannot absorb price increases.
    Proposition 12 has driven pork prices up significantly--pork loins by
    41%, bacon by 16%--making it impossible for many restaurants to
    maintain affordable menus. A carnitas taco, once $1.50, now costs $3 to
    $4, pricing out loyal customers.
        Restaurants face an impossible choice. Do they raise prices,
    alienating their low income customer base? Do they reduce portion
    sizes, diminishing customer satisfaction? Do they remove pork dishes,
    eroding cultural authenticity and brand identity? For ethnic
    restaurants, removing these long established dishes is not just a menu
    change; it's a cultural loss that risks alienating their community and
    driving them toward closure.
        Despite recent claims by some that the market has adjusted to the
    demands of Prop 12, this is simply not true. National chains possess
    the purchasing power to demand access from their suppliers to Prop 12
    compliant pork. In other cases, they have directly invested the many
    millions of dollars required for the construction of Prop 12 compliant
    farms. The small community based businesses I represent do not have
    that luxury. Neither are they able to negotiate bulk contracts or
    spread costs across their operations nationwide.
        Even if they could afford these price increases, access to
    Proposition 12-compliant pork remains another significant hurdle. Like
    their customers, large national distributors serving national chains
    can invest in compliant facilities or absorb losses to ensure supply.
    Small restaurants and local grocers, reliant on independent
    distributors, find compliant pork scarce or even impossible to obtain.
    Often they are forced to resort to buying pork at retail from the large
    national chains that have access to the scarce pork in the marketplace.
    These are the same large chains they are often competing directly
    against, paying inflated retail prices and then having to mark up
    pricing further to cover costs. This practice erodes profitability and
    forces restaurants to compete with the very chains that dominate the
    compliant pork market, creating a vicious cycle that threatens their
    survival and raises costs for consumers within their community.
    Conclusion
        California Proposition 12 has created a cascade of challenges for
    small, family owned Hispanic and Asian restaurants and grocery stores,
    threatening their economic viability and the cultural fabric of the
    communities they serve. The 20% rise in pork prices and supply
    shortages force restaurants to alter culturally significant menus and
    grocers to reduce offerings, alienating customers and eroding profits.
    These small businesses lack the resources to secure compliant pork or
    absorb its high costs, creating a two-tiered market that disadvantages
    minority-owned enterprises. For the 65% of Californians of Hispanic and
    Asian descent, the loss of affordable pork threatens cultural
    traditions and food security, as dishes like carnitas, char siu, and
    lechon become less accessible. The warnings of both former USDA
    Secretary Tom Vilsack and current USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins about
    supply chain disruptions underscore the broader implications:
    Proposition 12 risks dismantling the ability of small businesses to
    serve their communities, potentially reshaping California and the
    nation's food and business landscape to the detriment of its most
    diverse and vulnerable populations. Without intervention, it will
    continue to dismantle the cultural and economic fabric of California's
    communities, leaving families without access to their heritage and
    businesses on the brink of collapse.
        Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I am happy to
    answer any questions.

        The Chairman. Ms. Rocha, thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        Ms. Lashmet, please begin when you are ready.

       STATEMENT OF TIFFANY DOWELL LASHMET, J.D., PROFESSOR AND
      EXTENSION SPECIALIST, AGRICULTURAL LAW, AgriLife EXTENSION,
     DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
         AND LIFE SCIENCES, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, AMARILLO, TX

        Ms. Lashmet. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and
    Members of the Committee, I am honored to testify before you
    today on this important issue. My name is Tiffany Dowell
    Lashmet. I am a Professor and Extension Specialist in
    agricultural law with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. I focus my
    work on legal issues impacting rural landowners and
    agricultural producers.
        As is true in my professional role, I am here today to
    offer an objective, unbiased view of the law as it surrounds
    this issue. I am not here to offer my opinion as to the wisdom
    of Proposition 12, the Supreme Court opinion in National Pork
    Producers v. Ross, or any proposed legislative enactments
    related to Proposition 12. I believe it is important to
    understand that there are, as is true with many issues,
    agricultural interests on all sides of the Proposition 12
    debate.
        Certainly, there are agricultural producers, groups, and
    businesses in favor of Congressional action to overturn Prop
    12. Similarly, there are agricultural producers, groups, and
    businesses strongly against Congress taking such action, many
    of whom have already gone to the expense to comply after Prop
    12 was passed and upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
        I have spent my career explaining complex and often
    contentious legal issues to farmers and ranchers in an
    unbiased, neutral manner, and I trust that that experience will
    aid me in doing the same here today.
        The United States Constitution grants Congress the right to
    regulate commerce between the states. There is little doubt
    that, should Congress wish to do so, it could pass a nationwide
    law related to the sale of products under specific living
    conditions. The United States Supreme Court recently noted as
    much in its consideration of Proposition 12.
        States have traditionally handled animal welfare issues,
    including the passage of laws related to production within
    their jurisdiction. California took these laws a step further
    by passing AB 1437 and Proposition 12, applying California
    confinement standards to in-state producers and containing a
    sales ban provision prohibiting products not complying with
    these standards from being sold in California, regardless of
    the state or country where animals were raised.
        Opponents turned to the courts, filing lawsuits against
    this sales ban provision of Prop 12, relying principally on an
    alleged violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant
    Commerce Clause theory posits that the Commerce Clause not only
    vests Congress with the power to regulate trade and commerce
    between the states but also contains a negative command,
    prohibiting the enforcement of certain state laws, even when
    Congress has failed to legislate in an area.
        In the challenge to Proposition 12 in National Pork
    Producers' Council v. Ross, the lower courts dismissed the
    Dormant Commerce Clause claim, and the United States Supreme
    Court affirmed that dismissal. Justice Gorsuch wrote the
    opinion for the court. While certain portions of the court's
    analysis were unanimous, others were fractured and complicated
    to parse. When struggling to explain this complex ruling to
    producers, I have frequently reminded myself not even all nine
    Supreme Court justices could get on the same page about how to
    properly legally analyze Proposition 12.
        In summary, the court upheld Prop 12 against the Dormant
    Commerce Clause challenge. Given the nature of the opinion,
    however, the broader takeaway and likely application to future
    cases is far more difficult to analyze and predict.
        There have been other relevant cases challenging Prop 12
    and the similar Massachusetts law Question 3, both based on
    Dormant Commerce Clause and other legal grounds outlined in my
    written testimony that may offer additional guidance.
        Finally, there have been a number of proposed bills here in
    Congress that would essentially invalidate laws like
    Proposition 12. These proposals vary greatly in scope, breadth,
    and potential implications.
        There is no doubt that this issue is important to
    agricultural producers across the country. Livestock producers
    in particular find themselves on both sides of the debate.
    Congress has the authority pursuant to the Commerce Clause to
    act in this area. Whether to do so or how to undertake such an
    effort is a matter of considerable complexity.
        In the absence of Congressional action or unexpected
    movement in the Judiciary, state laws such as Prop 12 will
    likely continue to remain in effect, and other states will
    remain free to pass additional laws relating to products that
    are offered for sale in their state, no matter where they are
    produced.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lashmet follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, J.D., Professor and
    Extension Specialist, Agricultural Law, AgriLife Extension, Department
     of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
                       Texas A&M University, Amarillo, TX
    I. Introduction
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Committee, it is an
    honor to testify before you today on this important topic. I am Tiffany
    Dowell Lashmet, Professor and Extension Specialist in Agricultural Law
    with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. I focus my work on legal issues
    impacting rural landowners and agricultural producers across the State
    of Texas and the country.
        The testimony below summarizes the legal framework surrounding
    California's Proposition 12 (``Prop 12''). As is true in my role at
    Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, I am here to offer an objective, unbiased
    view of the law as it surrounds this issue. I am not here to offer my
    opinion as to the wisdom of Prop 12, the Supreme Court opinion in
    National Pork Producers v. Ross, or any proposed legislative enactments
    related to Prop 12. I believe it important to understand there are, as
    is true with many issues, agricultural interests on all sides of the
    Prop 12 debate. Certainly, there are agricultural producers, groups,
    and businesses in favor of Congressional action to overturn Prop 12.
    Similarly, there are agricultural producers, groups, and businesses
    strongly against Congress taking such action, many of whom already went
    to the expense to comply after Prop 12 was passed and upheld by the
    Court. I have spent my career explaining complex, and often
    contentious, legal issues to farmers and ranchers across Texas in an
    unbiased, neutral manner, and trust that experience will aid me in
    helping to do the same in this setting.
    II. Background
        The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 grants
    Congress the right to regulate commerce between states. There is little
    doubt that, should Congress want to do so, it could pass a nationwide
    law related to the sale of products raised under specific living
    conditions so long as the law fell within the broad parameters of the
    Commerce Clause. The United States Supreme Court repeatedly noted as
    much in its recent consideration of Prop 12.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Pork Producers v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        States have traditionally handled animal welfare issues tracing
    back to the 1800s.\2\ However, laws requiring specific amounts of
    living space were not seen until 2002 when Florida enacted a
    Constitutional Amendment prohibiting confining or tethering a pig so it
    could not turn around freely.\3\ Shortly thereafter, numerous other
    states passed similar legislation with rules related to sows and/or
    veal calves. The first such statute in California, Proposition 2
    (``Prop 2''), was passed in 2008. It was the first in the nation to
    impose spacing requirements on laying hens and also included
    requirements for sows and veal calves.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Elizabeth R. Rumley & Rusty W. Rumley, Enforcing Animal Welfare
    Statutes: In Many States, It's Still the Wild West, 21 San Joaquin
    Agric. L. Rev. 21 (2012).
        \3\ Fla. Const. art. 10,  21.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2010, the California Legislature passed AB 1437 relating to
    laying hens. This law went a step further than Prop 2, requiring eggs
    sold in California to be raised in accordance with the Prop 2 animal
    housing requirements, regardless of the state in which the hens were
    housed.
        Ten years later, California voters passed Prop 12, a ballot
    initiative taking this same approach with regard to veal calves and
    sows. Prop 12 included increased spacing requirements for in-state
    production of laying hens, sows, and veal calves, but also added a
    sales prohibition requiring whole pork and whole veal products sold
    within California to be traceable to animals raised in compliance with
    the Prop 12 standards, regardless of the state where the animals were
    raised.
        Currently, a number of states have animal confinement statutes on
    the books that apply to animals produced within the state itself. Far
    fewer have a sales prohibition imposing the animal confinement rules on
    products raised in other states but sold in their jurisdiction. Only
    Massachusetts has a similar law related to eggs, pork, and veal.
    Several states, including Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona,
    Colorado, and Michigan have similar laws or regulations applicable only
    to laying hens.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Elizabeth Rumley, States' Farm Animal Confinement Statutes,
    National Agricultural Law Center, https://nationalaglawcenter.org/
    state-compilations/farm-animal-welfare/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    III. Prop 12 Litigation
        Not surprisingly, opponents turned to the courts, filing lawsuits
    against the sales provision of Prop 12, including National Pork
    Producers Council v. Ross. Plaintiffs, National Pork Producers Council
    and American Farm Bureau Federation, filed suit in the United States
    District Court for the Southern District of California claiming the
    sales ban provision of Prop 12 violated the dormant Commerce Clause.
        The dormant Commerce Clause theory posits the Commerce Clause not
    only vests Congress with the power to regulate trade and commerce
    between states but also contains a negative command prohibiting the
    enforcement of certain state laws even when Congress has failed to
    legislate in an area. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held states
    may not pass discriminatory laws treating out-of-state businesses
    differently than in-state businesses and may not pass laws that are
    facially neutral if they impose a ``substantial burden'' on interstate
    commerce where the benefit of the law is outweighed by the burden on
    interstate commerce.
        The Plaintiffs and other parties who object to Prop 12 argued the
    sales ban provision of the California law ran afoul of the dormant
    Commerce Clause.\5\ Specifically, they claimed Prop 12 had significant
    extraterritorial impacts and imposed a substantial burden on interstate
    commerce. In explaining the burden imposed on interstate commerce,
    Plaintiffs noted the effects of this law would be felt primarily
    outside of California given that California makes up less than 1% of
    pork production but consumes 13% of pork in the United States.\6\ They
    cited concern that Prop 12 could be the first step in a patchwork of
    different animal confinement laws. They pointed to the increased cost
    required for producers to change production practices in order to be
    Prop 12 compliant and the anticipated increase in pork prices to
    consumers as a result.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ A similar lawsuit, State of Missouri v. Harris, No. 14-17111
    (9th Cir. Nov. 11, 2016) challenged AB 1437's sale ban provision for
    eggs on dormant commerce clause grounds but was dismissed on procedural
    grounds.
        \6\ National Pork Producers v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023)
    (Kavanaugh, J. concurring); California Pork Producers Association,
    Commodity Fact Sheet: Pork (2020), https://cdn.agclassroom.org/ca/
    resources/fact/pork.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        California and other proponents of Prop 12 argued that decisions
    related to health, safety, and welfare of animals and citizens should
    be left to the states. They pointed out Prop 12 does not expressly
    require any out-of-state producer to comply with Prop 12 standards;
    instead, out-of-state producers are free to choose to continue their
    current production practices and elect not to sell products in
    California. They also pointed to producers who have successfully
    converted their operations to be Prop 12 compliant as proof these
    adjustments can successfully be made.
        The trial court dismissed the suit on California's 12(b)(6) motion,
    and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    affirmed.\7\ The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 6 F.4th 1021 (9th Cir.
    2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IV. The United States Supreme Court Opinion
        The Court issued its Opinion in National Pork Producers Council v.
    Ross in May 2023.\8\ Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the Court.
    While certain portions of the Court's analysis were unanimous, others
    were fractured and complicated to parse. To the extent there is a good
    illustration of the complex nature of this issue, this Opinion serves
    as Exhibit A. When struggling to explain this complex ruling to
    producers, I have frequently reminded myself not even the nine Supreme
    Court Justices could all get on the same page about how to legally
    analyze Prop 12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ 598 U.S. 356 (2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        First, the Court unanimously agreed that the Plaintiffs did not
    claim Prop 12 was facially discriminatory. The Plaintiffs conceded that
    Prop 12 imposes the same burdens on in-state pork producers as it does
    out-of-state and even international producers, requiring all to comply
    with the same animal confinement requirements to sell covered products
    in California.
        Second, the Court unanimously rejected NPPC's argument that Prop 12
    should be stricken because it has extraterritorial effects. The Court
    agreed it had never read the Commerce Clause so broadly and noted that
    in today's marketplace most state laws would have some sort of
    extraterritorial impact. This, the Court held, was not the proper
    inquiry under the dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
        Third, the Court turned to the Pike balancing test. This line of
    cases developed in situations where a law's practical effects may also
    show the presence of a discriminatory purpose, despite the law seeming
    facially non-discriminatory. When this occurs, the Court utilizes Pike
    balancing to weigh the impact on interstate commerce against the local
    interest in the law. This is where the unanimous view of the Court
    ceased, and a flow chart became necessary to determine which portions
    of the various Opinions with which each Justice agreed.
        Three justices (Gorsuch, Thomas, Barrett) concluded, at least under
    the facts of this case, the Pike balancing test is one that no court is
    equipped to undertake. They described the interests being weighed and
    balanced as being ``incommensurable.'' They likened the task of
    weighing and balancing the economic interests of the Plaintiffs with
    the moral and health interests of California to determining whether a
    particular line is longer or rock is heavier. Instead, they wrote, ``in
    a functioning democracy, policy choices like these usually belong to
    the people and their elected representatives'' who are better able to
    weigh political and economic costs and benefits.
        Four justices (Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan) found the
    Plaintiffs failed to allege a ``substantial burden'' on interstate
    commerce. This is a key decision for these Justices, because in order
    to get to the balancing test, a Plaintiff must first allege a
    substantial burden on interstate commerce. These Justices believed the
    pleadings failed to allege sufficient facts to prove this substantial
    burden. Importantly, these justices noted ``further experience may
    yield further facts'' as Prop 12 went into effect, leaving it open to
    future challenge should further facts develop to show a substantial
    burden.
        On the other hand, the remaining five justices (Roberts, Alito,
    Kavanaugh, Jackson, Barrett) believed the Plaintiffs did successfully
    allege a substantial burden. Four of these justices would have remanded
    the case to the trial court to conduct the Pike balancing test. Justice
    Barrett, however, did not agree with remanding the case because of her
    conclusion courts should not be conducting this type of balancing test
    at all.
        It is hard to overstate the importance of Justice Barrett's
    concurring opinion and her position that the Court is not suited to
    apply a balancing test. Given that she agreed a substantial burden was
    satisfactorily alleged, had she believed conducting Pike balancing was
    within the province of the judiciary, the majority opinion well may
    have become the dissenting opinion, resulting in the case being
    remanded for the lower court to develop the record necessary to conduct
    the Pike balancing analysis.
        One final interesting note is Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring
    opinion for the purpose of pointing out laws like Prop 12 ``may raise
    questions not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the
    Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the
    Full Faith and Credit Clause.'' Additionally, he noted that this issue
    may have implications far beyond the farm gate. ``Notably, future state
    laws of this kind might not be confined to the pork industry . . . If
    upheld against all constitutional challenges, California's novel and
    far-reaching regulation could provide a blueprint for other states.''
    He offered examples of hypothetical laws patterned after Prop 12
    related to immigration, minimum wage, and even reproductive rights.
        The bottom-line result of the various opinions and differences
    therein was the Court found in favor of California, and Prop 12 was
    allowed to stand. Because of the fractured nature of the Opinion,
    however, the broader takeaway and application to future cases is more
    difficult to analyze and predict.
    V. Subsequent Litigation
        There have been other lawsuits after the NPPC decision that are
    relevant to the legal landscape surrounding Prop 12.
    A. Iowa Pork Producers v. Bonta
        In June 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
    Circuit issued its opinion in Iowa Pork Producers v. Bonta,\9\ a
    challenge to Prop 12 on a number of legal grounds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Iowa Pork Producers v. Banta, No. 22-55336 (9th Cir. June 25,
    2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        First, the case challenged Prop 12 on dormant Commerce Clause
    grounds. The court found Prop 12 was not discriminatory on its face and
    did not impose an excessive burden on interstate commerce, noting that
    increased costs of compliance, alone, do not establish a substantial
    burden on interstate commerce.
        Second, the court rejected Plaintiff's claims that Prop 12 was
    unconstitutionally vague with regards to the language ``engage in'' and
    ``knowingly'' as these words are widely used and readily understood.
        Third, the court rejected Plaintiff's claim under the Privileges
    and Immunities Clause as they did not allege treatment of nonresidents
    differently than California residents.
        Fourth, the Plaintiffs claimed Prop 12 is impliedly preempted by
    the Packers and Stockyards Act. The court did not agree as Prop 12
    requires all parties, regardless of location, to sell compliant
    products.
        The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Certiorari before the United
    States Supreme Court, which was denied on June 30, 2025. It is
    interesting, in light of his Ross concurring opinion, to note that the
    Court's denial order stated that Justice Kavanaugh would have granted
    the petition.
    B. Triumph Foods v. Campbell
        In 2024, the United States District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts decided Triumph Foods v. Campbell, a challenge to
    Massachusetts' Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, more commonly
    known as Question 3 (``Q3''), a law quite similar (but not identical)
    to Prop 12.\10\ Massachusetts voters passed Q3 in 2016, prohibiting
    producers from confining breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying
    hens in a manner that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully
    extending their limbs, or turning around freely. Like Prop 12, the law
    applies to animals raised in Massachusetts and to any products sold in
    Massachusetts, regardless of their original location.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Triumph Foods v. Campbell, 1:23-cv-11671 (D. Mass. July 22,
    2024) (appeal pending before United States Court of Appeals for the
    First Circuit, No. 24-1759).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Plaintiffs raised a host of claims including the dormant
    Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Full Faith and
    Credit Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Import-Export Clause, and
    preemption under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (``FMIA'') \11\ and
    the Packers and Stockyards Act. Many of the claims were dismissed, but
    the court did consider the dormant commerce clause and preemption
    claims.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ 21 U.S.C. Section 601.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        First, the court considered but rejected the dormant Commerce
    Clause claim based on the statute as a whole, relying on the Supreme
    Court decision National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. The Court
    agreed it was not in a position to measure incommensurable competing
    goods and that such choice belongs to the Legislative Branch. Because
    of this, the court refused to apply the Pike balancing test and
    dismissed the claim.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Triumph Foods v. Campbell, 715 F.Supp.3d 143 (D. Mass. 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Next, the court considered one specific provision, the
    ``slaughterhouse exception,'' which allowed non-compliant products to
    be sold at an establishment in Massachusetts inspected under the FMIA.
    Plaintiffs alleged that, as out of state processors, they could not
    take advantage of this exception despite being governed by the same
    FMIA inspection. Conversely, any in-state pork producer would be able
    to do so. The court agreed the slaughterhouse exception had a
    discriminatory effect as, in application, it treated in-state and out-
    of-state processors differently. Under the law, a discriminatory
    provision is almost per se invalid and can only survive if it advances
    a legitimate local purpose that cannot be served with reasonable, non-
    discriminatory alternatives. The court found that while taking no
    position on the legitimacy of the purpose of Q3 as a whole, the state
    did not prove a legitimate purpose for the slaughterhouse exemption
    specifically. Thus, it was deemed unconstitutional and severed from the
    language of the Act.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a separate Order, the Court considered the preemption argument
    under the FMIA. FMIA regulates meat products in interstate commerce
    requiring Federal inspection of pigs prior to entering and while in a
    slaughterhouse, and after slaughter. FMIA's regulations apply to
    slaughterhouses, not to pig farmers. FMIA contains an express
    preemption prohibiting state laws in addition to or different from FMIA
    related to the premises, facilities, and operations of a FMIA-inspected
    establishment.
        The trial court found Q3 (once the slaughterhouse exemption was
    severed) was not expressly preempted by FMIA, holding Q3 has no
    provision requiring action by a slaughterhouse. Q3 only bans the sale
    of non-compliant pork, doing nothing to regulate slaughterhouse
    operations.
        Similarly, the court held the law did not fall under conflict
    preemption, which occurs when a state law stands as an obstacle to the
    accomplishment of the purpose and objective of Congress or it is
    impossible for a party to comply with both state and Federal
    requirements. Here, slaughterhouses could comply with both the Federal
    and Q3 requirements, and the two laws have different purposes, with Q3
    preventing the sale of pork raised in certain conditions and FMIA
    seeking to protect the health of a consumer through meat inspection
    programs.
        Thus, the court upheld Q3 without the slaughterhouse exemption
    language. Importantly, this case has been appealed to the United States
    Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which has not yet issued an
    opinion. To the extent there are questions regarding preemption between
    any existing or proposed law and Prop 12, this case may be helpful to
    illustrate how courts would analyze that issue.
    C. United States of America v. California
        Earlier this month, the Department of Justice filed suit in the
    United States District Court for the Central District of California
    claiming the portions of Prop 12 and AB 1437 that apply to laying hens
    is preempted by the Federal Egg Products Inspection Act. The Egg
    Products Inspection Act includes a preemption provision preventing
    states from imposing additional or conflicting requirements related to
    the processing and labeling of eggs that are already covered by Federal
    standards. Specifically, the DOJ claimed Prop 12 and AB 1437 impose
    requirements related to ``quality and condition'' of eggs and labeling,
    which are preempted by the EPIA. No court decisions or supplementary
    filings have been made to date.
    VI. Recently Proposed Congressional Action
        In recent years, there have been several legislative proposals to
    address Prop 12 and other similar laws.
    A. Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (118th Congress, S. 2019,
            H.R. 4417) and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (119th
            Congress, S. 1326)
        While the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (``EATS Act'')
    and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act may have different names,
    their content is the same.\14\ Both are broad attempts to address laws
    like Prop 12 by prohibiting a state or local government from imposing a
    standard or condition of pre-harvest production on agricultural
    products sold in interstate commerce if production occurs in another
    state and the standard is in addition to Federal law or laws of the
    state in which production occurs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Note these bills are very similar to the Protect Interstate
    Commerce Act of 2018, commonly known as the ``King Amendment,'' with a
    key difference being the King Amendment prohibited laws related to the
    production or manufacture of any agricultural product, while the EATS
    and FSFPA removed the ``manufacture'' language.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given the definition of certain terms and provisions in these
    proposed bills, they would have quite broad application. For example,
    these laws would apply to ``agricultural products'' which are defined
    as ``agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products,
    livestock and poultry, bees, forest products, fish and shellfish, and
    any products thereof, including processed and manufactured products,
    and any and all products raised or produced on farms and any processed
    or manufactured product thereof.''
    B. Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act (118th
            Congress, S.3382)
        Senator Hawley introduced the Protecting Interstate Commerce for
    Livestock Producers Act which would expressly preempt states from
    enforcing livestock laws in conflict with livestock laws in other
    states such as Prop 12. Specifically, the law provided that no state or
    local government shall enforce any law ``that regulates the raising,
    production, use, transportation, importation, sale, or distribution of
    any livestock goods deriving from livestock'' if the livestock or goods
    are (1) used, sold, or transported in interstate commerce, (2) raised
    in another state, and (3) the law is in conflict with the laws of the
    state or origin. There were exceptions including laws related to
    animals suffering from recognized animal diseases.
    C. Ensuring the Free Movement of Livestock-Derived Products in
            Interstate Commerce (Food, Farm and National Security Act of
            2024, Section 12007)
        In its Food, Farm, and National Security Act of 2024, the House of
    Representatives included Section 12007, ``Ensuring the Free Movement of
    Livestock-Derived Products in Interstate Commerce'' (``12007''). This
    bill would have prevented states from enforcing conditions or standards
    on the production of covered livestock, except for those physically
    raised in such state. This language was significantly narrower than
    that proposed by prior bills in a couple of significant ways.
        First, 12007 only applied to ``covered livestock,'' defined as any
    domestic animal raised for the purpose of slaughter for human
    consumption, or producing products manufactured for human consumption
    which are derived from the processing of milk, including fluid milk
    products. The proposed language expressly excluded animals raised for
    the primary purpose of egg production. This is narrower than both the
    EATS and Hawley bills.
        Second, the bill only addressed laws imposing conditions or
    standards on the production of covered livestock physically raised in
    the jurisdiction. The ``production'' of livestock was limited to the
    raising, including breeding, of covered livestock and excluded the
    movement, harvesting, or further processing of covered livestock.
    Again, this is significantly narrower than the language of prior bills.
    VII. Conclusion
        There is no doubt this issue is important to agricultural producers
    across the country, and livestock producers find themselves on both
    sides of the debate. Congress has the authority pursuant to the
    Commerce Clause to act in this area. Whether to do so or how to
    undertake such an effort, is a matter of considerable complexity. In
    the absence of Congressional action, state laws such as Prop 12 and Q3
    will continue to remain in effect given the lack of success challenging
    these laws in the judiciary. Additionally, states will remain free to
    pass similar, more restrictive, or more lax requirements as they wish.
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering
    any questions you may have.
                                   Exhibit A
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Ms. Lashmet, thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
    order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
    Members, and in order of arrival for those who joined us after
    the hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each
    in order to allow us to get to as many questions as possible.
    And I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Cook, your testimony briefly mentions the potential
    consequences of a patchwork of conflicting production standards
    across the country. Can you tell us as an economist what you
    would expect to happen to pork producers and the pork industry
    as a whole if numerous states began developing different
    production standards?
        Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. Pork producers today
    are already subject to a significant amount of risk when it
    comes to the production and marketing of their animals. In a
    situation like you described, we would likely be seeing a much
    greater percentage of producers required to undertake costly
    investments and changes, and so that can have an impact at the
    farm level, but as far as our industry, it could impact our
    structure as well and may be a factor in fewer farms being able
    to own sows.
        The Chairman. Thank you so much. Mr. Cushman, some people
    in this town have decided to run with a narrative that the
    Supreme Court has already ruled on this case, and therefore,
    there is nothing left that needs to be done. Can you walk us
    through what the Supreme Court ruling actually said, and
    especially Justice Gorsuch's commentary on the role Congress
    can play here?
        Mr. Cushman. Thank you so much, Chairman Thompson. Yes, the
    narrative that the Supreme Court has already ruled and the
    issue is settled is not entirely true. Essentially, what
    Justice Gorsuch said is the Judiciary is punting the issue to
    Congress, which he felt was the most appropriate branch of
    government to handle the issue.
        Justice Gorsuch believed, along with Justice Thomas and
    Justice Barrett, that the Judiciary was not the appropriate
    branch to handle these kinds of claims. They felt that the
    Dormant Commerce Clause did not go as far as we believed it did
    in substantially burdening interstate commerce.
        As you know, you need five justices to win a case. We had
    four justices that fully agreed with us on the law and the
    facts. Two justices in the majority, Justices Kagan and
    Sotomayor, believed that we had not proved the factual
    predicate to establish this claim. They agreed with us on the
    law, but not on the facts. Justice Barrett wrote separately to
    say that she did not agree with us on the law, but targeting
    Justices Sotomayor and Kagan said that we clearly did establish
    the factual predicate to establish that kind of a claim if they
    believed such a claim did exist.
        But in short, Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority of
    the fractured opinion, did say that the Dormant Commerce
    Clause, as we saw it, did not provide us relief, that if we did
    view this as a concern, Congress would be the appropriate body
    to handle this issue.
        The Chairman. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Hord, your testimony notes that you have been a full-
    time pork producer since 1987 so you know the uncertainties
    farmers face with volatile markets, weather conditions, and
    regulatory burdens. Given the Supreme Court ruling, do you
    worry that similar state mandates will keep popping up across
    the country? Even though you have complied partially with Prop
    12, will you be able to survive if the goalposts keep moving?
        Mr. Hord. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Yes, this isn't a
    concern for our farm. In Ohio, we have already experienced the
    goalposts being moved. In 2010, our producers in Ohio agreed to
    a group housing plan for the sows under the Ohio Care Standards
    Board. In 2024, we made the decision to modify a barn that was
    previously converted to the Ohio standard. The potential of a
    patchwork of another 49 states and causing me to make
    additional changes is a major concern for our family's
    operation.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hord.
        I yield back the balance of my time, and I recognize the
    Ranking Member from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Lashmet, I saw the letter this morning from USDA to my
    colleagues on Prop 12 raising prices in California for pork.
    Talk to me a little bit about beyond consumer prices.\2\ I know
    there are a number of other issues that this body must
    consider. Various legislative proposals would preempt Prop 12.
    How could those different proposals impact other state laws? I
    am just trying to get a sense of if we preempt Prop 12, what
    happens in other states to their laws?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Editor's note: the letter referred to (submitted by Mr.
    Thompson) is located on p. 157.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ms. Lashmet. Sure. In typical lawyer fashion, I think I am
    going to tell you that it depends specifically on the language
    of the proposal that Congress passed and the specific state
    laws at issue. So if we look particularly at the language that
    was included in the farm bill, that language was much narrower
    than the language that was proposed in the EATS Act,\3\ for
    example, and so I think it really depends on the specific
    language of the Congressional action, the breadth of the
    definitions included in those actions. And once we figure out
    that language, you can see the number of state laws that could
    potentially be impacted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Editor's note: 115th Congress: H.R. 4879/H.R. 3599, Protect
    Interstate Commerce Act of 2018; 116th Congress: H.R. 272, Protect
    Interstate Commerce Act of 2019; 117th Congress: H.R. 4999/S. 2619,
    Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act; 118th Congress: H.R. 4417/
    S. 2019, Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act; 119th Congress: S.
    1326, Food Security and Farm Protection Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I have seen a study from Harvard looking specifically at
    the EATS Act, and the estimates there were that it could
    preempt a number of existing state laws.
        Ms. Craig. I know in my own State of Minnesota, I think it
    was somewhere around 40 state laws that could be impacted the
    language in the EATS Act.
        Ms. Lashmet, there are producers obviously on both sides of
    this issue. In your estimation, how many producers have
    converted their operations to become compliant? And if Congress
    were to preempt Prop 12, what would happen to the producers who
    have already invested to become Prop 12 compliant?
        Ms. Lashmet. Admittedly, I don't have individual knowledge
    of the number of producers that have complied with Prop 12. I
    did see the letter from USDA this morning, and that indicated
    that USDA believes it is about 27 percent of producers have
    made those changes.
        The impact on them if Proposition 12 were to be preempted
    by Federal law is that they have the sunk cost of having
    already invested in making those expensive and complicated
    changes to their operations, and if the law changes at that
    point, they likely would feel that they had done that with no
    need, an unnecessary investment in those changes.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you. I wonder if I could hear from the
    rest of the panel on that question. What happens to producers
    that have already invested to become Prop 12 compliant if we
    preempt it? Ms. Rocha? Is there any concern with that?
        Ms. Rocha. From a consumer perspective, our concern would
    be in the pricing, of course, so that would be something that
    we are looking at, increasing prices for not just the consumer
    but also for restaurant owners who actually purchase the
    product.
        Ms. Craig. Mr. Cushman?
        Mr. Cushman. Thank you for the question. This kind of a law
    would not require those farmers that have changed operations to
    change back. They are not making it illegal for them to
    continue farming that way and serving whatever markets do want
    to purchase those products. It would merely provide farmers a
    choice on how they would proceed going forward, and
    importantly, it would protect those farmers that have made the
    change from any future changes that another state might have by
    enacting another law that is contradictory to Prop 12 or moving
    goalposts further than what Prop 12 did. And finally, it would
    protect current farmers that are not compliant with Prop 12 to
    be able to serve markets across the country.
        Ms. Craig. Ms. Cook?
        Ms. Cook. Thank you. I would begin by saying producers who
    are currently compliant will be the best positioned to continue
    serving markets where there is a demonstrated demand for those
    products. But additionally, producers compliant and not
    compliant have a shared concern about patchwork and the future
    risk to investments in the pork industry.
        Ms. Craig. Mr. Schuiteman?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Thanks for the question. I would agree with
    what Holly said in terms of the market demand, and I would
    defer over to Patrick with his experience in the conversion of
    their operation.
        Ms. Craig. Mr. Hord?
        Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman. As I thought about
    it, I hope you can appreciate the challenge I am in because I
    have made some conversions, but the fact of the matter is me
    sitting here saying the patchwork is a big concern for me
    personally as well as our industry of the continued potential
    of 49 additional states making mandates, and it has become, as
    my experience--and I mentioned in my answer earlier, it is a
    challenge for us, so that is why we are looking at the
    opportunity to discontinue the patchwork is a big challenge for
    us.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Hord. Thank you to the panel.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia [presiding.] Thank you, Ranking
    Member Craig, and I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hord, the people who support Proposition 12 have
    started the narrative that any fix to this mess that has been
    created by it would help China somehow. Your testimony touches
    on this. Do you believe that a fix to Proposition 12 would help
    China, or do you believe that it will help American farmers,
    ranchers, and consumers?
        Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you for the question. I think this is
    a U.S. pork industry concern from the smallest producer to the
    larger ones, and so, no, I do not think this in any ways helps
    any foreign--and, in fact, our foreign trading partners are
    concerned about this, and I think at times could be looked at
    as an advantage for other countries. But yes, that is kind of
    how--as National Pork Producers Council, what we think about
    that.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Hord.
        Mr. Cushman, I am going to come to you, but I want to read
    this section of section 12007 of the farm bill. ``In general,
    producers of covered livestock have a Federal right to raise
    and market their covered livestock in interstate commerce, and
    therefore, no state or subdivision thereof may enact or enforce
    directly or indirectly a condition or standard on the
    production of covered livestock other than for covered
    livestock physically raised in such state or subdivision.'' And
    we concede that they have the right to put those stipulations
    on producers in their state.
        But from the legal side of things, do you have any concern
    that that section of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act
    of 2024 will somehow give China unfettered access to our
    agricultural markets?
        Mr. Cushman. [Off microphone.]
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Ms. Cook, can you explain
    generally how much production costs increase when a producer
    converts their operation to comply with Proposition 12? Are
    these costs passed along to the rest of the supply chain to
    processors and retailers, for example? And if so what are they?
        Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. As with anything, the
    exact cost number will vary depending on the individual farm
    and their situation, but looking at the cost of constructing
    compliant facilities, that can increase fixed costs anywhere
    from 20 to 40 percent per pig, but we are also seeing higher
    operating costs, things like labor, feed, veterinary care,
    utilities. Those can increase 15 percent when converting to
    Proposition 12. And then we also may have to spread those out
    over fewer pigs due to the productivity impacts of Prop 12, so
    that is on the farm level side. And there are certainly costs
    across the supply chain, packing, processing, distribution, and
    retail, all of the segregation and tracing and things like
    that. I don't have specific data on that topic, but those are
    certainly significant and should be considered as well.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Ultimately, any business has
    to have more dollars in than they have going out, and when the
    government passes rules and regulations that increase the cost
    of operations, whether it be in the construction of facilities,
    as it is here for swine, I mean, if the farmer can't get their
    money back somehow, then the farmer goes broke. I mean, I think
    that is the problem when you have people who either don't
    understand business or don't support agriculture or America's
    ability to feed itself continue to imply these additional
    burdens on the producers. Ultimately, the consumer has to pay
    or the producer goes out of business.
        I think, Ms. Rocha, this was effectively your comments,
    correct? I mean, if you increase the price of pork to the
    restaurant chain, if the consumer can't afford to pay for the
    product, then the product is no longer available. Your
    restaurant goes out of business. Is that correct?
        Ms. Rocha. Yes, that is my point exactly, and we are seeing
    that already just based on other regulations, so this would be
    yet another regulation on top of those that would affect the
    restaurants.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And you somewhat alluded to
    this. Are you a resident of California?
        Ms. Rocha. Yes, yes, yes. I am a resident of California,
    yes.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And so California has public
    initiative. A lot of things go on the ballot, but do you think
    that the general public who voted on this understood what the
    end result was of this ballot measure when they voted to put it
    in place?
        Ms. Rocha. I believe that the law, as well-intentioned as
    it was, I feel that the voters could not have known the
    impacts, and we see that a lot with our similar regulations. So
    like I said, I don't think that the voters could have known the
    impacts of Prop 12.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. My time has expired. Thank you
    all for your testimony and answering the questions.
        I now recognize Chairman David Scott from the great State
    of Georgia.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We have before us one of the most challenging issues that
    this Committee is faced with. We have to guarantee that the
    livestock is raised safely and humanely on one hand, and at the
    same time ensure that farmers and ranchers can be successful in
    operating their businesses.
        But there is something a little deeper here. We have a
    substantial burden on our interstate commerce and the
    implications that this may have on the producers. So Ms.
    Lashmet, your testimony was very effective because you placed a
    great deal of emphasis on expanding what some of our justices
    did not believe Proposition 12 placed a substantial burden. I
    want you to get into this a little bit because we have to be
    clear. Going into this, we have the producers on one hand, we
    have our farmers and ranchers on the other hand. We have to
    come together. We have to solve this problem. But in the middle
    of it is the Supreme Court. Help us find a way out of this
    challenge.
        Ms. Lashmet. So I do think it is interesting that there was
    such a fractured opinion that came from the Supreme Court, and
    they struggled with the exact question that you are asking
    here. And if you look at the opinion, one of the big issues is
    whether or not there was a substantial burden on interstate
    commerce due to the language of Proposition 12 being enacted in
    California.
        I think one important note--it is kind of technical, but I
    do think it matters--is that the Supreme Court was reviewing a
    decision on a motion to dismiss, which is a 12(b)(6) motion.
    What that means is there was no discovery conducted in the
    case, and so they were really relying completely on just the
    pleadings in the case for the facts. And so I do think it is
    questionable if there was an additional factual record that had
    been developed through discovery if that could have added more
    to the analysis of the substantial burden.
        With what the court had, what they decided was--five
    justices actually did say that there was a substantial burden
    adequately alleged. Four justices said that there were not. And
    then as Mr. Cushman explained, given that Justice Barrett did
    not believe in weighing the outcome of the case was different
    than that five to four ruling on substantial burden.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Now, specifically, to what
    extent do increased producers' costs constitute a substantial
    burden, as the court mentioned?
        Ms. Lashmet. The court did look at the increased cost on
    producers and the increased cost on consumers when they were
    weighing the potential substantial burden analysis in the case,
    so I think the court would say that it does have a factor in
    that analysis.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Now, are there other
    considerations similarly weighed when arriving at this
    decision?
        Ms. Lashmet. So when the court looks at substantial burden,
    it looks at a wide variety of considerations, and those do
    include the increased cost on the producer, the increased cost
    on the consumer, the cost that may be spread out amongst the
    industry as a whole, right? It is not just the producer and the
    consumer that face the cost. All along the supply chain, there
    are increased difficulties and increased costs when you add
    additional regulations like Prop 12. The court took all of that
    into consideration.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Now, finally, how do courts
    compare the local interest in a law and the impact on
    interstate commerce? Is there a subjective nature to this
    decision, which can lead to varying views between different
    courts?
        Ms. Lashmet. Absolutely. There is absolutely a subjective
    nature. It is called the Pike balancing test is where the court
    weighs those two interests. It is a subjective test. And here,
    that is the point that three of the justices made was that the
    court really is not well able to conduct that type of
    subjective analysis where they are having to weigh California's
    interest in food safety and animal welfare against economic
    interests that were raised by the plaintiffs in the case.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, thank you for your
    excellent analysis of the courts. Thank you.
        Ms. Lashmet. Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Bacon for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much. I appreciate you all being
    here today.
        I tend to agree with the Supreme Court decision. It is not
    their role to regulate interstate commerce, but it is our role.
    And it seems to me that we can't have 50 state standards when
    it comes to pork or anything else like this. It is not fair to
    the producers. It is not fair to the processors and the
    consumers.
        My first question is to Mr. Hord and Ms. Cook. I appreciate
    all the cost analysis that you have been given, but if we can
    put it down to the most basic level, if you go to the
    supermarket, how much more percentage-wise will a consumer pay
    because of this rule? What will be the increase to the cost of
    pork?
        Ms. Cook. On average, across covered products, it is 20
    percent.
        Mr. Bacon. A 20 percent increase for consumers, and I think
    we come from all different parts of the country, but for a low-
    income earner, a 20 percent increase in pork is terrible. And
    that is what we are doing here. And it doesn't just stop with
    California. Other states could be doing similar things. We have
    heard of others. So I think it is our role here to get our arms
    around this and set one standard for the country.
        Mr. Schuiteman, how hard is it to comply as a farm? You
    raise hogs. What would you have to do to comply with this on
    your farm?
        Mr. Schuiteman. I think that is going to vary based on the
    facility. We have several different spaces and types of
    facilities, and the costs have been quoted $3,500 to $4,500 per
    sow. I think that could be on the low end, depending on the
    type of facility you have, if you have to move concrete, if it
    is simply just replacing inside infrastructure. So it is going
    to vary, but it is going to be a cost, and the question on our
    side is will we recoup the cost? And with the uncertainty of
    the potential patchwork, without that solid--if every state is
    going to rule, we just don't know where to go with it.
        Mr. Bacon. Would it cost you more than $50,000 to modify
    your operation to comply?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Pretty easily more, yes.
        Mr. Bacon. So maybe $100,000? That is an incredible cost to
    each individual farmer. I know it varies based on the size, but
    I just think we have to realize this is what we are asking
    individual farmers to do to comply with us.
        Mr. Cushman, are we at risk of having 50 state standards
    that people have to comply with?
        Mr. Cushman. Yes, we are, and that was one of the biggest
    concerns American Farm Bureau had about this law, and one of
    the reasons we decided to sue California on it. Currently, we
    run the risk of states constantly moving the goalposts on what
    farmers need to do, so after they make those investments, they
    have it changed again. The risk of states enacting a patchwork
    of legislation like that and kind of mucking up the system,
    that is that threat of creating those kind of COVID-like
    disruptions we saw to the food supply system, and we are very,
    very concerned about that.
        Mr. Bacon. And the courts, if I understand it, the Supreme
    Court said it is not its role to force a standard. It is our
    role. Is that right?
        Mr. Cushman. It was a very difficult decision to understand
    and read. That is in essence what the court said was that three
    justices believed that it was not the Judiciary's role to weigh
    in. Two justices did not think we had established that burden
    to do so. So the way the makeup worked, we had six that would
    have taken the case, five that agreed with our factual
    predicate, but the ruling we have left over is essentially yes,
    that it is now the ball is in Congress' court to fix the
    problem.
        Mr. Bacon. As a lawyer, that is our constitutional role is
    to regulate interstate commerce.
        Mr. Cushman. That is correct.
        Mr. Bacon. Mr. Hord, I wanted to clarify something that you
    brought up. You said that this rule, this California
    proposition, in reality really helps the big farmer, but the
    small farmers hurt the most. Do I get that right?
        Mr. Hord. No, I didn't say that. I just said that a lot of
    times larger farmers have the opportunity to have the capital
    and the ability to take the risk on a percentage of their
    production where a smaller producer may not have that same
    access to capital and the ability to take the risk that comes
    because of the uncertainty of what we are discussing here
    today.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you for your clarification. I will just
    close and just repeat the beginning question. A 20 percent
    increase in pork, that is a tremendous cost on the consumer at
    all levels of income. So thank you.
        With that, I yield.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Bacon.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. McGovern for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going
    to begin as I began yesterday with my questioning and say that
    this Committee should be holding hearings on the impacts that
    the big ugly bill (Pub. L. 119-21), which is now law, are going
    to have on nutrition programs. I mean, we should be having
    before us right now experts, heads of food pantries and food
    banks. We ought to have people with lived experience who rely
    on these nutrition programs about what will happen when the big
    ugly bill forces millions of people off of SNAP. We have 42
    million people that are going to see their benefits cut. We are
    told that five million people, older adults, veterans, families
    with teenagers, former foster youth are at serious risk of
    losing their benefits outright. What Republicans did in this
    Committee on reconciliation, I believe, is unconscionable, all
    to fund and offset the cost of tax cuts for multimillionaires
    and billionaires.
        And it should be the focus of this Committee to end hunger
    in this country and not make it worse. And by the way, ending
    hunger is good for the American farmers too. They produce the
    food that is purchased with SNAP, and that is where our focus
    should be.
        Now, bringing me to today's hearing. I am astounded that we
    are taking what little time we have before the August recess to
    once again have Republicans use Prop 12 as a punching bag to
    distract from corporate consolidation in the meat sector. Now,
    we have gone around in circles over Prop 12 and other states'
    anti-animal cruelty laws for years. And the largest pork
    producers are not happy. Sixty-six percent of all Americans
    oppose confinement crates. That is from a Harris poll by the
    way. They went all the way to the Supreme Court a few years ago
    with an unconstitutional argument that undermined the most
    basic concepts of Federalism. They lost, and now instead of
    moving on, as so many family farmers have done by the way, they
    have come to Republicans for a legislative bailout.
        But this hearing will not get them closer to overturning
    Proposition 12, and that is because this hearing is an
    intentional misrepresentation of reality. The reality is that
    Prop 12 took effect at the beginning of last year, and the
    fear-mongering has fallen flat. Farmers in Iowa have not been
    forced to go crate-free if they don't want to. Grocery shelves
    are not empty. The egg industry actively supports Prop 12's
    cage-free requirements. Major retailers and restaurants support
    Prop 12. And many pig farmers, especially the 82 percent of pig
    farmers who have fewer than 500 pigs, are now benefiting from
    the new market opportunities for humanely raised meat.
        Now, a lot of good has come from these state laws, and
    Republicans still want everyone to believe that state laws to
    make sure pigs have enough room to turn around, as most
    Americans want, are some sort of Marxist plot against the
    heartland.
        And this leads me to the greatest misrepresentation of all
    today. There are thousands of farmers who vocally support Prop
    12, but Republicans have not given them an opportunity to speak
    today. With all due respect to this panel, and I appreciate Ms.
    Lashmet's neutrality, this is not a balanced panel. One would
    think there is not another side to this argument. But some of
    these farmers who support Proposition 12 are here. I have met
    them. They are in the audience, and they deserve a voice in
    this conversation because their livelihoods are at stake.
        And I ask unanimous consent to insert over 150 letters, Mr.
    Chairman, that I received from many of these farmers who
    support Proposition 12. I ask unanimous consent to put them in
    the record.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Editor's note: the letters referred to are located on p. 174.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These farmers have been shut out of this process, and let
    the record reflect that. Republicans love to talk about
    regulatory certainty, which I figured out is euphemism for
    taking away anything they don't like. What about the certainty
    for these farmers who have made investments to go crate-free,
    who have followed the rules, and now you want to pull the rug
    from under them?
        Let me make this as clear as possible. If you kill Prop 12,
    you are putting independent family farms at risk. They will not
    be able to shoulder the cost of going backwards the way the
    factory farms can. It will be ``get big or get out'' all over
    again. And it will be crystal clear who cheered on the
    corporate operators while they ate up the last of the family
    farms in America.
        And one final thing. When Republicans were fighting with
    each other over the big ugly bill, one of the most contentious
    issues was a provision to block states from having their own
    regulations on AI. It almost tanked the bill. Folks do not like
    it when people in Washington try to override local decisions.
    And the divides among Republicans on Proposition 12 are not
    going to go away.
        I have news for my Republican friends. Washington does not
    always know what is best. I respect what our states are doing.
        And with that, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. McGovern, you made a
    motion to submit something for the record? All right. We are
    going to accept that without objection.
        I also have a letter from the American Farm Bureau that I
    would like to submit for the record. National Pork Producers
    Council included this, and over 900 additional Federal, state,
    and local farm organizations who write in strong support of
    section 12007 of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of
    2024.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 162.]
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And I am submitting for the
    record a letter from the American Veterinary Association who
    writes in strong support of section 12007 of the Farm, Food,
    and National Security Act of 2024, submitting that for the
    record, where they oppose Proposition 12 for animal welfare.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 161.]
        Mr. McGovern. And Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure
    all 150 of my letters are going to be in the record, right?
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir.
        Mr. McGovern. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. With that, Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson. Ms. Cook, we have talked a fair amount today
    about how Proposition 12 has been a major driver of increased
    costs. I think 20 or 22 percent has been quoted today in
    California. I think you talked a little bit about how it can be
    $3,000 an animal to make these physical changes to the
    operations. Is that about right?
        Ms. Cook. It can vary. It can be up to $4,500 or more for
    new construction.
        Mr. Johnson. And so California could change the rules again
    in a couple of years, right?
        Ms. Cook. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. Imposing a new round of capital investments
    for producers.
        Ms. Cook. We face that risk today in this environment, yes.
        Mr. Johnson. And then you would have what in economic terms
    I believe is just called a stranded cost. You get these
    pancaking requirements of physical improvements with really no
    mechanism to recover those costs in the marketplace. Is my
    understanding of that right?
        Ms. Cook. In theory, a producer would not undertake these
    investments willingly without a guarantee of a return, but in
    our current environment, there is no certainty.
        Mr. Johnson. That uncertainty has a chilling effect on
    investment and new market entrance. My understanding of that is
    right?
        Ms. Cook. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. Which, over time, is going to further inflate
    food prices for Americans that frankly deserve to have
    affordable protein. Is that right?
        Ms. Cook. If the impacts have the effect of contraction and
    that pressure on the industry, then certainly it could increase
    pork prices.
        Mr. Johnson. So I want to shift a little bit to animal
    welfare, either Mr. Hord or Mr. Schuiteman. There have been
    some studies quoted today--Mr. Schuiteman, maybe I would start
    with you--that there has not been an increase in animal welfare
    post-Proposition 12. Is my understanding of that right?
        Mr. Schuiteman. That is correct.
        Mr. Johnson. And in fact, sow mortality went up. The need
    for additional antibiotics went up. Is that right?
        Mr. Schuiteman. That is correct.
        Mr. Johnson. So what are the proponents of Prop 12 missing?
    What do they not understand about sow behavior? What do they
    not understand about animal husbandry that causes them to
    misfire so dramatically on their views of what these animals
    really need to be safe and sound?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
    think within that lies the point that in terms of welfare, we
    are where we are today in our production systems because we are
    trying to find the best welfare for the sow. And sometimes that
    leads us to more confinement, but truly, as we have studied
    things over the years, it is the best outcome for the sow, for
    her offspring, all the way down the line. It is a constant
    moving target, but that is how we got to where we are today was
    because of animal welfare.
        Mr. Johnson. So every producer I have ever met cares about
    animal welfare. They understand that that is a living creature
    worthy of decent treatment. But let's assume that wasn't the
    case. Let's assume that it was just about dollars and cents. Do
    animals under duress thrive? Do animals under duress put on
    weight?
        Mr. Schuiteman. I think that is a great question, and I
    think the interesting thing about a female sow herd is that if
    there is poor welfare, your pocketbook will suffer because poor
    welfare will lead to decreased production every time. And it is
    almost an instant feedback when you are managing a breeding
    herd poorly to what you are going to get out at the end, so I
    think that is a great question. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson. So again, tier one, decent humans care about
    animal welfare; but tier two, successful businessmen and
    successful businesswomen care about animal welfare because an
    animal that is comfortable will produce better economic
    results. Am I right?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Johnson. But what else can you tell us about that? Give
    us a sense of how dramatically true that is in the marketplace.
        Mr. Schuiteman. I think one thing we discussed here
    recently was just how, again, in the production systems that we
    developed, whether it be the breeding herd or whether it be the
    production herd, our goal is to give every pig the same
    opportunity to thrive. And really, if we are doing that, then
    our bottom line is in great shape too. And so the big piece of
    that is the welfare, the environment, the day-to-day
    management.
        And like I said in my testimony, if we are going to have to
    try to meet an arbitrary target set by people who are away from
    the farm, and some of that control is taken away from us,
    invariably our ability to do the best for that animal at any
    one given time could suffer.
        Mr. Johnson. Proposition 12 has, according to the studies
    we have discussed today, increased cost to consumers, it has
    reduced the viability of small family operations, and it has
    injured animal welfare. Proposition 12 is a fantastic failure,
    and it is time for Congress to fix that mistake.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Ms.
    Adams of North Carolina for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like, first of all, to ask for unanimous consent to
    submit into the record written testimony from ASPCA opposing
    overturning Proposition 12 and other state laws.
        [The statement referred to is located on p. 248.]
        Ms. Adams. Mr. Hord, I have a question, a few yes or no's
    for you. Are you aware that there are pork producers who are
    benefiting from the market created by Proposition 12?
        Ms. Lashmet. Was that question to me? Sorry.
        Ms. Adams. Yes. Mr. Hord? Yes or no, sir?
        Mr. Hord. Was that question to me?
        Ms. Adams. Are you aware that there are pork producers who
    are benefiting from the market created by Proposition 12?
        Mr. Hord. There are. There are definitely producers that
    are raising Prop 12-compliant pork, yes.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. And so Congressman McGovern is introducing
    letters from hundreds of these farmers that it would be helpful
    if you get to know them because they may be your members. I
    think he has already spoken to that. So why is NPPC working
    against these farmers?
        Mr. Hord. Thank you. Is this a question for me, too, as
    well?
        Ms. Adams. Yes.
        Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you. Well, the challenge is we have a
    state that raises 0.1 percent of the pork in the U.S., and so
    when they make a mandate, it essentially mandates to the rest
    of the country that there has to be conversions to this
    mandate. And so I think NPPC's position is the concern that it
    is forcing other states to be able to meet the demand of one
    state, that of another state, and I think that is the crux of
    the concern here, ma'am. Thank you.
        Ms. Adams. So let me ask you, does NPPC receive any
    government pork commodity check-off funds to your knowledge?
        Mr. Hord. Yes, yes. NPPC is a voluntary check-off
    organization.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. What percentage of your funds consists of
    commodity pork check-off funds? Do you know what the percentage
    is?
        Mr. Hord. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
        Ms. Adams. What percentage of your budget consists of
    commodity pork check-off funds?
        Mr. Hord. Well, I could not answer what the exact
    percentage is being used. Everything for us--NPPC is a public
    policy----
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, you don't have a percentage that you
    know of. Okay. Well, let me move on.
        I have heard from producers and companies both large and
    small that have invested in Proposition 12-compliant systems,
    not because they agree with or support Proposition 12, but
    because the law was passed in 2018, and they had a business
    decision to make. They decided to invest in a compliance system
    to supply a large market, and some of those producers have
    invested tens of millions of dollars. They have faced nearly 5
    years of uncertainty from the initial January 2022
    implementation date. And when the Supreme Court ruled in 2023,
    they hoped that this was finally a settled matter. Now Congress
    is introducing even more uncertainty. Those producers who
    invested are the ones who will be hurt.
        Ms. Lashmet, have you seen any data that assesses the cost
    that these producers will incur to revert back to the
    traditional system?
        Ms. Lashmet. No, ma'am, I have not seen specific data on
    that. I certainly have heard producers discuss that that is a
    concern for them, but I don't have specific numbers on that.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. In your opinion, will the EATS Act as
    written or any preemption of Proposition 12 be subject to
    additional legal challenge and additional years of uncertainty
    for these producers who are simply trying to follow the law to
    have access to a market?
        Ms. Lashmet. I think it is safe to say if Congress acts in
    this space, it is very likely that it will be challenged in the
    courts.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, thank you very much, and thank you
    all for your testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
        And I am submitting for the record a letter from the
    Livestock Marketing Association where they offer support for
    section 12007. Without objection.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 168.]
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Mann, you are now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
    here today. I appreciate the Chairman for having this hearing.
        I represent the Big First District of Kansas, 60 primarily
    rural counties in western and central Kansas. The Big First is
    one of the top swine-producing districts in the country, much
    smaller than Iowa and other states, but we generate more than
    $640 million in sales, ranked fourth nationally. We have over
    1,000 farms raising hogs and pigs each year.
        Kansas farmers, ranchers, and ag producers have been
    burdened with additional costs to conform with not Kansas law
    or even Federal law where they have a seat at the table, but
    from a state that is 718 miles from my district's border with a
    fraction of their production compared to what we produce in
    Kansas. Fellow Kansan President Dwight Eisenhower once said
    that farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and
    you are 1,000 miles from a cornfield, and that is exactly what
    has happened in California with Proposition 12. I look forward
    to hearing from you all on your perspectives on the issue and
    how it is affecting our ag producers.
        Just a few questions, maybe first for you, Mr. Hord. How
    does Prop 12 affect U.S. pork producers' ability to access
    export markets, particularly given that most foreign buyers
    expect a uniform national standard?
        Mr. Hord. Thank you for that question. To my knowledge--and
    I am obviously a pork farmer, but to my knowledge, I don't know
    that the export out of the U.S. Typically, we are trying to
    meet that California standard. The concern is for other foreign
    trading partners. They are concerned about the fact that they
    would have to comply to be able to sell pork or bring pork in
    to California, which does give some concerns with the USMCA, as
    well as the WTO concerns, so that is a concern of NPPC.
        Mr. Mann. In your mind, do inconsistent state requirements
    like Prop 12 make it harder for us to compete globally?
        Mr. Hord. It does make it a challenge. The fact of the
    matter is, though, that mostly Prop 12 is being supplied from
    the U.S. market, and so I don't immediately think it is a
    global trade issue, although NPPC supports global trade and is
    advocating on that on behalf of pork producers.
        Mr. Mann. Thank you. Ms. Cook, do you find that there is
    any evidence of significant premiums at the store for Prop 12-
    compliant pork products such that they would outweigh the
    increase in production costs that you have seen for producing
    those? What is the market saying as far as the demand for
    products that are Prop 12-compliant in California or otherwise?
        Ms. Cook. Well, in California, it is the only option for
    covered products, so they are paying a lot more than they were
    before Prop 12, and they are also paying more than other U.S.
    consumers in other states for the same product. We have seen
    that in the data.
        I think you asked about the cost and the producers. There
    is more than just even the farm level cost that goes into what
    the consumer has to pay. There are costs incurred at every
    level of the supply chain, and so what we are seeing is much
    higher prices, and with that, consumers are able to consume
    less pork.
        Mr. Mann. Are you seeing other states provide a premium or
    market pork that is Prop 12-compliant, or what are other states
    doing outside of California?
        Ms. Cook. Well, I think it is important to recognize that
    there is a difference between demand from consumers for certain
    products that is communicated through market signals and a
    willingness to pay, and then a voter-approved measure that
    requires that pork be sold, so we are seeing that in
    California. There are other markets for certain products that
    are occurring based on consumer demand, but not in the same
    restrictive and requirement way that we see with Proposition
    12.
        Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
    here. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Mr.
    Costa because Ms. Brown is allowing it.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Brown.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank Ms. Brown.
        Mr. Costa. That is what I was going to do.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Got you.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Ms. Brown
    for the courtesy of allowing me to go before her.
        Obviously, this is a hearing that impacts California, and I
    would hope to believe, as a third-generation farmer from
    California, that this isn't a morning to simply beat up on
    California. And I, with all due respect, am not feeling that
    the panel that we have here, as good as it is, is balanced in
    terms of the different points of view that clearly are involved
    with a lot of other elements of agriculture and farmers that
    have adjusted and are taking advantage of the opportunities
    that Proposition 12 provides.
        The hearing today is obviously focused on the grievances on
    Prop 12. And let me be clear, I did not endorse Prop 12. It was
    a measure approved by the people of the State of California in
    2018. It has created a niche marketplace for producers, but we
    also need to know that it wasn't fully implemented until July
    1, 2023, because of the litigation that took place.
        And in terms of the impacts on the market, while some
    studies have been cited, I don't think anyone cited the
    Oklahoma State University professor of economics, who indicated
    from an economic analysis I reviewed there is no indication
    that Prop 12 has contributed to elevated pork prices at the
    national level. I want to insert that for the record.
        [The analysis referred to is located on p. 172.]
        Mr. Costa. I think there are a lot of other elements that
    impact market prices, and let's start with tariffs. Mexico is
    the top valuation destination for U.S. pork last year, $2.5
    billion. China is the U.S.'s largest market for pork variety
    meat by a value of $1.1 billion. Canada is the top market for
    U.S. processed pork and the fourth largest market for U.S. pork
    markets at $852 million. So what are we doing with Canada and
    Mexico? We are in a trade war. We are in a trade war.
        In fact, in 2020, President Trump, after the conclusion of
    the U.S.-Mexico trade agreement, I think I remember him saying,
    the best and most beautiful, greatest trade agreement ever
    known to mankind, now we are in a trade war with our two
    biggest trading partners, Mexico and Canada, which accounts for
    about 40 percent of our trade, a lot of agricultural trade back
    and forth. It makes no sense to me.
        And by the way, that provision of USMCA had a good
    provision in it. It asked every 5 years for a review period.
    Guess what? We are in that 5 year period for the review period.
    Why not take advantage of that best, greatest trade agreement
    ever known to mankind that was signed by President Trump in
    2020? This is a lot about political rhetoric. And I think this
    trade war goes to the heart of impacting American farmers.
        I am a third-generation farmer. And I can tell you, in
    California, we are most fearful about the impacts of our
    markets that we have established. Forty-four percent of our
    agriculture in California is exported. It is exported. And when
    we went through this scenario and Trump won, we lost market
    share that we still have not gained back.
        So the reality is we are facing losing markets largely due
    to uncertainty and inconsistency of this Administration's
    inability to negotiate trade deals, 90 days, 90 countries,
    maybe here, maybe there. I don't know. But certainly the
    uncertainty and the confusion in the marketplace continues to
    lead to the questionability of the United States as a trading
    partner, and that impacts American farmers. It impacts
    California farmers. That is a fact.
        So it is a simple economic lesson. Less food being
    produced, less food being exported, more tariffs equals higher
    food costs. That is the bottom line. And tariffs are a tax on
    American consumers, American producers, American agricultural
    producers, and that relates to higher food costs.
        So I would be remiss if I did not indicate that when we
    talk about Prop 12, when we talk about the other initiative,
    high-path avian flu was largely responsible for the increase in
    the costs of egg production, and that gets overlooked. I mean,
    the impact of high-path avian flu, we have depopulated 170
    million layers, 30 million this year, and in California, 17
    million.
        So I yield back the balance by time, but I think that we
    are missing the point here.
        The Chairman [presiding.] The gentleman yields back, and I
    now recognize the Chairman emeritus of the House Agriculture
    Committee, Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma.
        Mr. Lucas. That is more polite than saying fossil, Mr.
    Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Schuiteman, your testimony touches on how Prop 12 could
    lead to the consolidation of family farms and small businesses.
    In your opinion, what will it mean for consumers across the
    U.S. if we begin to lose small- and medium-sized producers?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    And as we have studied the market worldwide, we have seen, for
    example, Europe has put in restrictions similar to what we see
    in California, and we have seen their production decline to the
    point where they have lost export markets. And so it seems to
    me to be a fairly certain statement to say that our production
    will decline as we lose small- and medium-sized farmers, making
    the product less available.
        We have talked at length here about the increase in the
    cost of the product at the store. I feel like with the
    uncertainty that we are looking at, we are kind of at a little
    bit of a tipping point. Are we going to continue to have
    quality, affordable protein, or are we going to go the other
    way?
        Mr. Lucas. Ms. Rocha, what will it mean for your member
    companies if we see a reduction in small- and mid-sized
    producers? Because you are next in the chain as we go towards
    the consumer.
        Ms. Rocha. Yes, thank you so much. Again, I believe we will
    see a decrease in choice. Ultimately for us, it is about
    prices, and so that is where we keep looking at prices. So yet
    another regulation put upon restaurants is also something that
    obviously concerns us.
        Mr. Lucas. Mr. Hord, I want to talk a little bit about
    administrative burden. In my home district in Guymon, Oklahoma,
    we have a Seaboard plant, and they process around 22,000 pigs a
    day. Under Prop 12, what additional steps will the plant have
    to take to ensure certain pigs are processed and products are
    labeled Prop 12-compliant? This is where the road meets the
    rubber.
        Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman.
    Being a producer, I know intimately what happens at the
    producer side. I can speculate a little bit on what happens in
    the processing side.
        Mr. Lucas. Please.
        Mr. Hord. We have to segregate the product, or the pigs
    have to be segregated, and then we have to schedule the loads
    accordingly, and then they usually sequence those.
        From my knowledge, they come into the plant, are segregated
    at the plant before they go to the harvest, and then as they go
    through that process, then they are segregated all the way into
    the freezer and then have to be segregated as those different
    products are shipped to California. So, yes, there is an
    immense amount of coordination and cost as you track all those
    things through. Does that answer your question?
        Mr. Lucas. Absolutely it does, and also from the
    perspective, livestock is different than many other industries
    in that you have a live animal, and from birth to processing,
    there are timelines and feed programs and processing. You can't
    start and stop the factory, you can't start and stop the chain
    flow, correct, from the farm to the----
        Mr. Hord. That is correct.
        Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Ms. Cook, and I know Austin Scott
    touched on this, your testimony highlights this, but can you
    briefly detail the variable cost over time that contribute to
    higher overall cost? And do we have an estimate of how much
    this is costing consumers now?
        Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. When it comes to
    variable costs, there are a few things to consider. One, if you
    have fewer pigs in a barn, you are probably paying more to heat
    that barn, so utilities, also the skilled management and labor
    that is required to work under a Prop 12 system, and other
    things like feed efficiencies and veterinary care are also
    really important costs that could increase under Prop 12. So
    studies show that could increase that total cost category up to
    15 percent, and that is certainly reflected in the cost
    producers need to make that work and then pass on to the
    consumer as well.
        Mr. Lucas. So potentially cause chaos in the supply chain.
        Ms. Cook. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. Exactly.
        Mr. Chairman, I can't think of an issue more important than
    to consumers all over the country, and maybe the world for that
    matter, than this issue, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from the Buckeye State,
    Congresswoman Brown, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Craig.
        I want to start by putting today's hearing in context. The
    Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. This is settled law. The
    Court was clear. States have rights to establish standards for
    goods sold within their borders. Proposition 12 wasn't a
    Federal mandate. It was a ballot initiative passed
    democratically and overwhelmingly by California voters.
        And other states are followers too. States across the
    country have either already passed or have introduced popular
    and often bipartisan measures that reflect local consumer
    values on animal welfare, food safety, and consumer
    transparency.
        This Committee often hears concerns, particularly from my
    friends on the other side of the aisle, about Federal overreach
    and one-size-fits-all policies that don't work for farmers and
    businesses on the ground. Yet here we are doing the opposite,
    discussing ways to override democratically enacted regulations
    at the Federal level.
        The reality is that major food and agricultural companies
    across the country have already moved to comply with Prop 12.
    They have made investments, integrated new standards into their
    supply chain, and adapted to a changing market. That tells us
    that these benchmarks are both possible and marketable. What
    farmers need right now is certainty, not uncertainty from
    Members of Congress reopening what has already been decided.
        Mr. Cushman, American Farm Bureau represents millions of
    farms of all shapes and sizes across the country. In your
    testimony, you mentioned several concerns about farmers
    transitioning to comply with Prop 12 standards. However, I am
    wondering if you can also speak to some of the challenges
    farmers who have already transitioned to Prop 12-compliant
    infrastructure may face if Congress were to overturn the law.
    What kind of economic impact would those farmers have?
        Mr. Cushman. Thank you so much for the thoughtful question.
    If Prop 12 was overturned, it would not impact those farmers'
    ability to continue their operations in the way that they see
    fit. They could continue serving the markets that have a demand
    or a request for Prop 12-compliant meat.
        What it would do is prohibit states from continuing to
    enact these kinds of patchwork of ratcheting up their
    requirements, so it would, in that way, protect those farmers
    that have made those investments from other states, changing
    and having a 25 square foot per sow rule or a 30 square foot
    per sow rule.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you. And Ms. Lashmet, your testimony also
    mentions the investment that many farmers have made to be in
    early compliance with Prop 12. Do you have anything to add
    about what that impact may be on those farmers?
        Ms. Lashmet. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Cushman that none
    of the bills we have seen require those farmers to convert back
    to the systems that they were under pre-Prop 12. That may
    overlook the costs that they have already spent in making those
    changes in the first place, right? So they have already made
    those changes, they have those sunk costs, and I think that
    that is a point that they frequently raise, both in lawsuits
    and otherwise when they are looking at those costs, that they
    have already spent them. So even if there is no requirement
    that they go back in the law, they will have to analyze whether
    that is something that they want to do and more costs they
    would want to incur.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you. And your testimony also notes that
    the Supreme Court upheld the California law in a complex but
    ultimately affirming decision. In your view as a legal scholar,
    what are the implications of Congress intervening to undo a law
    that has been both democratically enacted by voters and upheld
    by the highest court in the land? Is there any sort of
    precedent in recent history for this type of Congressional
    action?
        Ms. Lashmet. That is something I might have to get back
    with you with some supplemental testimony for the record.
        Ms. Brown. Okay. Thank you. To all of our witnesses, I
    appreciate you being here today and sharing what you are
    hearing from producers and stakeholders on the ground when it
    comes to Proposition 12. Your insights are valuable to this
    Committee.
        And with that said, I want to be clear. Proposition 12 has
    been settled by the voters of California and by the U.S.
    Supreme Court. Meanwhile, this Committee has pressing
    unresolved issues before us. That includes the current
    Administration's action to freeze Congressionally appropriated
    funds, USDA abruptly terminating grant programs, and dismissing
    career public servants without cause. I look forward to
    addressing those pressing issues in this Committee as well.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
    Feenstra, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking
    Member Craig, for holding this critical hearing. This is a
    very, very important hearing.
        So I represent the largest hog-producing district in the
    nation. I represent the largest hog-producing state in the
    nation. And I also represent the largest county in the nation
    that produces hogs, and that is over one million hogs that we
    have in my individual county.
        And I am so proud to have Matt Schuiteman here from our
    county that knows. We live it. We breathe it. We see it every
    day. We understand Prop 12, all right?
        And I want to dig into this a little bit so everybody can
    just sort of understand what is happening here. All right?
    First of all, I have a bunch of letters here from farms I have
    visited in my district firsthand to talk about this egregious
    mandate, and I want to bring these stories to light. So
    Chairman, if I may ask for unanimous consent for these farmers'
    concerns to be submitted to the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The documents referred to are located on p. 170.]
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Mr. Schuiteman, let's talk about
    what Prop 12 is all about. It is really about the health of the
    animal. All right? That is how it all started. All right? It is
    very simple. All right? That we want to protect the animal
    health.
        So when I visited family farms in my district, they noted
    that the system has caused increased stress, injury for the
    animal, mortality, while limiting individualized animal care.
    Right? And yet Prop 12 is supposed to make sure that doesn't
    happen. Can you explain what is happening? Why do they have
    stress and injuries from Prop 12?
        Mr. Schuiteman. I think part of the root of the problem is
    just simply the fact that you have an initiative that was
    crafted by people who have not lived the industry, who have not
    been around the animals. And, those of us who have been around
    it for generations can tell you, well, this animal is going to
    do this, and if you give this animal this space, she is going
    to do this. And that institutional knowledge, what Prop 12
    does, is it takes away our ability to act on what we know for
    the best interest of the animal.
        And maybe it has been settled in other places, but that has
    not been settled in Iowa. And we would prefer to have the
    freedom to manage our animals the best way we can see fit for
    the best possible outcome.
        Mr. Feenstra. That is right. Thanks for your expertise on
    this. You live it and breathe it every single day.
        And think about this. So I just talked about Iowa being the
    largest state in the nation for producing hogs. California, on
    the other hand, makes up less than \1/10\ of 1 percent of pork
    production, \1/10\ of 1 percent, and yet they are creating the
    law. And we make 40 percent. Forty percent of the hogs come out
    of Iowa, and yet we are bound by a state that is \1/10\ of 1
    percent of the hogs. How egregious is that? How clueless is
    that when they don't have an idea of what these animals are
    going through. And when you create larger pens, they destroy
    each other. That is what hogs do. This is just stupid.
        So let me go on a little further. So when we have to do
    Prop 12, all right, what are the ramifications? Does it cost
    you more money? If you have to go down to Prop 12, all right,
    we sort of went through this already, but it is going to cost
    you how much more per animal? Do you know?
        Mr. Schuiteman. We have talked about the $3,500 to $4,500
    range per sow or more.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yep, $3,500 to $4,500, right? So think about
    that. All right. So now it is going to cost the producer that
    much more. And then it is noted here that in California the
    prices have increased 20 to 40 percent on average. All right?
    So prices have increased, the cost for the farmer has
    increased, and the animal is far worse off by Prop 12. What are
    we doing? What are we doing? This all happens because
    California has a liberal progressive agenda that has no idea
    what farming is all about.
        Let's be clear. Prop 12 is a direct threat to our viability
    of family farms, the health and welfare of animals, and the
    affordability of pork production in America. I stand with my
    Iowa hog farmers, and I urge this Committee to act. Food
    security is national security, and Prop 12 is putting both at
    risk.
        And I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
    Mr. Sorensen, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    Ranking Member, Ms. Craig.
        Across Illinois, county fair season is in full swing,
    igniting a proud tradition. Shout out to Stephenson County Fair
    and McLean County Fair going on right now.
        But this isn't just 1 week out of the year. It is not just
    funnel cakes, corndogs, and tilt-a-whirls. Farm kids from all
    over my district, from Freeport and Kewanee, Monmouth, and
    Canton, have been getting up for weeks and months and years
    before dawn, raising, prepping their animals in order to show
    off their skills. It is a great tradition where we can bring
    families from our big cities to our fairgrounds to understand
    and appreciate the grit, the pride, the importance of
    agriculture and animal husbandry.
        In our part of the world, FFA and 4-H organizations,
    parents and grandparents have passed down essential values of
    animal stewardship to young farmers, rooting them in
    responsibility and compassion and in hard work. Their
    experience reflects a broader truth. Animal stewardship is not
    a partisan issue. It is a core tradition of American
    agriculture, and it is something that we are all so proud of.
        From small family farms to large commercial operations,
    producers understand that the health and the welfare of their
    animals are directly tied to the longevity of their business
    and the confidence of the consumer. The hands-on experience
    gained in daily care, nutrition, health management reflects the
    very values that underline innovative agricultural standards.
        I live just 2 miles from the bridge that goes from Illinois
    into Mr. Feenstra's State of Iowa. No offense to anyone else,
    Illinois and Iowa, we produce the best pork in the world,
    sorry. But when I am at Fareway or Jewel or Hy-Vee, no shopper
    I talk to balks at the idea of making sure that we have minimum
    space and welfare requirements for livestock that becomes the
    protein on their dinner tables. Why? Because they already
    assume it is the case.
        On the farm and in this Committee, we have many different
    perspectives on what is best. But what is clear is that many of
    the practices that Prop 12 promotes, like quality care and
    daily health checks and ethical housing, have already been
    implemented by a significant number of producers. And I would
    challenge people to rectify with that fact that it is exactly
    what we teach our kids early on, on the farm.
        Though Prop 12 is a voluntary approach, the measure
    reflects the enduring values of stewardship that the FFA and
    that 4-H have upheld for generations. And I challenge my
    colleagues on this Committee. It shouldn't be different from
    one political party to the other. Shouldn't policy mirror what
    is working in practice, not just in theory?
        Ms. Lashmet, thank you for explaining in your testimony the
    different sides of the issue. Are you familiar with any
    existing or proposed state laws or ballot initiatives that
    mirror Prop 12 standards or that would implement a standard
    that is vastly different than Prop 12?
        Ms. Lashmet. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question. So
    certainly there is a very similar law to Proposition 12 in
    Massachusetts, which is Question 3. It applies to all three of
    the same species as Prop 12. There are also a number of states,
    six of them, in fact, have similar laws like Prop 12 for egg
    production that impose the requirements not only on the
    producers in the state, but also on eggs that are going to be
    sold within the state. So those are the similar laws.
        I am not familiar with states that have enacted standards
    that are vastly different than Proposition 12 at this point.
        Mr. Sorensen. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution
    doesn't specifically say that the Federal Government can do
    anything it wants but that states and the people come first. In
    your opinion, do you believe preempting Prop 12 could violate
    the 10th Amendment?
        Ms. Lashmet. I think that there is always a really delicate
    balance whenever Congress acts under the Commerce Clause and it
    affects states, and so I think that Congress will have to be
    careful to find a balance between the 10th Amendment and the
    Commerce Clause.
        Mr. Sorensen. Thank you. As we continue to debate the
    merits, the consequences of Prop 12, it is critical that our
    discussions be grounded in facts and not politics. I wasn't
    elected to Congress because I was a slick talker. I earned the
    trust of the people by collecting data, by deciphering science,
    and explaining the results. So parsing out all of the noise, we
    can see that this law was written as a return to the
    longstanding practices that define true animal husbandry.
        But intentions aren't all we have here. The issue is the
    broader regional implications for producers, supply chains,
    consumer prices, interstate commerce, and that is what is still
    an issue for me. And this isn't checkers, it is playing chess.
    We must make sure that what we do in this Committee strengthens
    the farmer and strengthens producers. Unwanted consolidation
    that benefits China or Brazil does a disservice to our farmers
    and the neighbors and small hometowns that I am fighting to
    protect back home.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Now, keeping with that Illinois theme, I recognize the
    gentlelady from Illinois, Congresswoman Miller, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    panel for being here today to examine the very far-reaching
    implications of Proposition 12.
        Illinois is one of the top pork-producing states in the
    country, and I have heard directly from our producers and
    organizations like the Illinois Pork Producers Association and
    the Illinois Farm Bureau about how Proposition 12 places a
    strain on family farms.
        The reality is simple. Proposition 12 imposes costly
    mandates on farmers in states like mine who have no say in
    California's policymaking. Producers in Illinois are telling me
    this will force many farmers out of the market altogether,
    driving further consolidation and vertical integration in an
    already concentrated industry.
        And I think it is interesting that my friend from across
    the aisle acted like he understands animal husbandry, which I
    guarantee you he does not, but he did acknowledge that
    producers want their animals to be healthy and live long
    because it affects their profits. So let them make the best
    choices for their production instead of having politicians that
    have no clue about agriculture or animal husbandry promoting
    these ridiculous policies.
        Smaller operations simply cannot absorb the financial
    burden of facility overhauls or navigate a patchwork of
    inconsistent state laws. That is what we are going to end up
    with. This is just the beginning. This not only threatens the
    viability of independent family farms but increases the cost
    for consumers. Ultimately, that is what will happen.
        And I suppose the plan is once we run American medium and
    small producers out of business, we will import more pork from
    other countries that we have no idea how they are actually
    raising their animals.
        So Mr. Schuiteman, can you please speak to how Proposition
    12 will accelerate consolidation in the pork industry and what
    it means for independent family farms?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Well, I think partly to answer that, I
    refer back to Ms. Rocha, her testimony. Two quotes that I wrote
    down is that, ``Proposition 12 is a death sentence to small
    business''; and ``Over-regulation takes food off the plate.''
    Clearly, if we are going to lose our small- and medium-sized
    producers, we are going to lose product to the market.
        How it is going to support consolidation, one way would be
    through the cost of construction. Mr. Hord referred to larger
    operations being able to segment maybe a portion of their
    production for a Prop 12-type market and do something else with
    the other ones while smaller producers, as he said, don't have
    that opportunity.
        And so it is a similar process to what we went through on
    our farm. I noted in my testimony that we farrowed until 2018.
    One of the factors at that time was with the passing of Prop
    12, what does the future look like, and what are we going to
    have to spend on our facilities to be able to meet that future?
    And because of the uncertainty, we chose to back away a little
    bit, at least from that segment of our operation.
        Mrs. Miller. Well, I am sorry to hear that.
        Mr. Cushman, now that Prop 12 has been upheld and without a
    fix from Congress, do you see this setting a precedent for
    other states to pass similar extraterritorial regulations?
        Mr. Cushman. Yes. Thank you so much for the question, and
    that is a large concern of ours. The 2022 Ag Census showed that
    we had lost 150,000 farms over 5 years. That is 77 farms a day.
    Laws like Prop 12 make it very difficult for small- and medium-
    sized farmers to exist, and without a fix from Congress, there
    will be nothing for farmers to do from another state, and that
    ratchets up their requirements to make it 25 square feet or 30
    square feet.
        Mrs. Miller. Also, Mr. Cushman, your testimony today has
    shown us exactly why Congress needs to provide a fix for
    Proposition 12. What risk does this pose for national
    agriculture markets and interstate commerce?
        Mr. Cushman. I think this would help ensure interstate
    commerce continues to be viable throughout the country. The
    Supreme Court decision from Gorsuch was clear that Congress is
    the appropriate body right now to act on this. In order to
    ensure those interstate markets continue to flourish and not be
    balkanized by state intervention into production laws of other
    states, it would be necessary for Congress to act.
        Mrs. Miller. I am just curious. When we import pork, are we
    imposing the same kind of standards on them?
        Mr. Cushman. Yes. So these standards for Prop 12 will apply
    to Canadian and Mexican pork. The Canadian Government has
    expressed concern with this. In fact, they have raised concerns
    that with the USMCA, it frustrates Federal trade policy. The
    USMCA adopts part of the WTO requirements, and under that,
    Canada has suggested that this restricts trade more than
    necessary and lacks scientific support, as required by the
    USMCA.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
    Mr. Figures, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Figures. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking
    Member Craig, and thank you to all of you guys being here and
    bearing through, sitting through a Congressional hearing, which
    I know is not at the top of your wish list in your career, but
    it is a worthy issue.
        For this to have started in California, I have heard a lot
    about it in Alabama. I am from the southern part of the state,
    Mobile, up to Montgomery and such. Alabama has a lot of pork
    producers, and they too are concerned about the implications of
    Prop 12 and their ability to be able to participate in the
    industry.
        But I have also heard on the other side of this, and this
    is truly one of those issues that I came to Congress, I don't
    come from an ag-exclusive background. My father owned a small
    cattle ranch for a little while when I was a child, but this is
    one where we had to dig in and learn about and are still
    digging in and learning about, and so I appreciate having this
    hearing to inform Members of Congress.
        I will also note that our colleagues on the other side have
    left, but you would have seen this gentleman over my right
    shoulder jump across the dais if he had heard them say that
    they have the best pork in America, my colleague, Mr. Davis,
    from North Carolina.
        And actually, let me back up. Before I go any further, I
    have an intern that is in her last week with us, Jaleia Latson,
    who is here with us, who has helped us not only prepare for
    this, but has been a great attribute to our office throughout
    her tenure with us, so thank you, Jaleia, and we wish you the
    best in your return to Spelman College.
        But getting back to task here, this is a tough issue. This
    is one where the Supreme Court has spoken in favor of one of
    the core principles that my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle stand for and a flagship case of states' rights. But,
    this is where one state's rights run up against the rights of
    companies that reside and operate in other states, runs up
    against their ability to make a living.
        And, in Alabama, like many other districts, in my district,
    pork production plays a vital role in the economy, so we
    understand that. And the State of Alabama, they joined part of
    the legal efforts and arguments before the Supreme Court. But
    it is an industry. It generates over $150 million in the State
    of Alabama and many jobs.
        And I recognize that consumers have a right, in any state,
    to want higher standards for how their food is produced. Food
    quality does matter, animal welfare matters, and there is value
    in continuing to improve standards for both. But this presents
    the tough question of is this the right way to do it? Is it
    informed? Does it make sense?
        We know agriculture is not a one-size-fits-all. What is
    feasible in one part of the country may not be workable in
    another part of the country, different landscapes, climates,
    production systems, economies. That is why we have to be
    extremely cautious about imposing blanket standards or
    standards that have the effect of being a blanket standard,
    even when passed in one specific state. Some decisions should
    be left to the states who know their own agricultural realities
    best. But on the flip side of that coin is some decisions in
    one state are having drastic impacts on others.
        But as we continue these discussions, we have to prioritize
    the producers who are caught in the middle of what is
    essentially a political game. And it is a game that is
    impacting real lives, real businesses, real people every single
    day. And these are complex issues, and they deserve thoughtful
    discussion, not just in courtrooms. We know what the Supreme
    Court has said. But the Supreme Court has a way of sort of
    winking its eye when it says, ``Hey, we know what we said, but
    we know what needs to be done or what can be done to provide
    the relief that is sought.''
        And so with that, look, I will ask a couple of questions
    here, but we will probably follow up with some more off-the-
    record stuff. We can go down the line, but I know some
    producers are now actively considering not selling into
    California. Is that a viable strategy at all in you guys'
    understanding of the industry?
        Mr. Hord. So let me repeat the question. So what you are
    saying is: is it viable that some producers don't sell into
    California?
        Mr. Figures. Correct.
        Mr. Hord. Yes. Okay.
        Mr. Figures. Could pork producers legitimately make a
    living X-ing out California?
        Mr. Hord. Yes. So each one of us as individual pork
    producers have the opportunity to make an individual decision
    whether we would supply Prop 12-compliant pork. The challenge
    is with California only producing 0.1 percent of the nation's
    pork and having 13 percent of the pork consumed in the U.S., it
    would be really detrimental to us as pork producers and the
    rest of the pork chain to not supply that. And so in reality,
    it is forcing the rest of the states to comply in order to
    raise that product for California.
        Mr. Figures. I will take that as a no, it is not a viable,
    wise, or sustainable decision for pork producers to make that
    decision.
        My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Thank you for
    holding this hearing today. And Mr. Chairman, I really just
    want to thank you for your steadfast leadership on this issue.
    You have been a true champion, and I really appreciate working
    with you on this.
        I represent a very strong powerhouse ag district in
    southern Minnesota. Most of my counties have more pigs than
    people. And the great hog farmers of southern Minnesota are the
    salt of the Earth, folks that have given so much to our
    communities, to our schools, to our towns, you name it. They
    are just a critical part of what makes southern Minnesota so
    great, and so it is an honor to represent all of them. And I
    have had a lot of conversations with them over the last few
    years, and they have been very crystal clear, loud and clear,
    that Congress must fix the Prop 12 piece.
        And so with that message I have heard loud and clear from
    them, they have also been telling me that they are very
    frustrated with the lies and the myths that are around this
    whole Prop 12 piece. So on the record, let's just go through
    some questions here, but I will just say this, that Prop 12
    mandate, it is based on political science. And it has been
    pointed out many times, Prop 12 was dreamt up by a bunch of
    folks that have never stepped foot in a hog barn. They don't
    understand what a gestation pen looks like. They don't
    understand the life of a hog farmer in this country, but yet
    they have dictated the terms on which we all live our life and
    how we lose money in this proposition.
        And so, I know the swine industry, you just stumble upon
    the way we take care of our hogs. This has been years and
    millions of dollars of investments, blood, sweat, and tears to
    your farms, multigenerational farms that you have learned
    through your grandparents and through your parents, and you are
    teaching your kids and your grandkids on how to always evolve
    and take better care of those animals.
        And so we are going to do yes or no questions if that is
    okay. Mr. Hord and Mr. Schuiteman, do you care about the health
    and well-being of your pigs?
        Mr. Hord. Yes.
        Mr. Schuiteman. Yes.
        Mr. Finstad. All right. Do you consult with veterinarians
    to ensure that your pigs are well cared for?
        Mr. Hord. Yes.
        Mr. Schuiteman. Yes.
        Mr. Finstad. Do you ensure daily that your pigs receive
    adequate nutrition and medications when in time for need?
        Mr. Hord. Absolutely.
        Mr. Schuiteman. Yes.
        Mr. Finstad. Is your success as a farmer directly tied to
    the health and well-being of your pigs?
        Mr. Hord. Yes.
        Mr. Schuiteman. Yes.
        Mr. Finstad. All right. So thank you. Again, I knew how you
    would answer it. I trust you. I trust my neighbors in southern
    Minnesota. And the production decisions that are being made
    have been years in the making. You all are more efficient now
    than you have ever been. You are more health conscious of your
    pigs than you have ever been. You didn't stumble upon these
    practices.
        So we have heard today Prop 12 and similar politically
    motivated mandates pose serious threats to consolidation within
    the pork industry. This is what I have heard loud and clear
    from my farmers in southern Minnesota. As was referenced a
    little bit earlier, I think the number was $3,400 a pig.
        How many pigs right now does a farmer have to raise to even
    break even with that proposition? I mean, there is an amount
    that would be not cost-wise to even go down this route. And if
    you are faced with that decision, consolidation will be the
    logical conclusion. So I guess it is not even a question. I
    mean, that is a statement of fact. I have heard it over and
    over again from my farmers that there is a price point that
    just pretty much ends that multigenerational farm opportunity.
        So Ms. Cook, if we don't stop this patchwork, do you
    believe the pork industry will consolidate further?
        Ms. Cook. Yes.
        Mr. Finstad. Yes. All right. So I have read a few press
    reports about this hearing. I was disappointed because some of
    my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that, well,
    we are in listen-only mode. Goodness gracious. We better be in
    action mode. We better be in action mode. And I am very proud
    of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the action that
    we have taken over the last few years to move Prop 12 into the
    bipartisan farm bill that we got through the Committee last
    Congress. I am looking forward, with the Chairman's leadership,
    to doing it again.
        My farmer friends would say listen-only mode on this issue
    is pretty much telling you that you are all hat and no cattle.
    And I think we have a few folks on this Committee and in
    Congress right now that are all hat and no cattle. And it is
    time for us to move on this, to create some certainty for the
    industry to allow you all to do what you have done best, allow
    you to pass that farm on to the next generation.
        So Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Before I introduce our next Member to speak, I ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record--speaking of how
    states feel about this, submitting for the record letters from
    Governors from across the country, led by Iowa Governor Kim
    Reynolds, where they express opposition to Prop 12 and ask
    Congress to act, as well as submitting for the record a letter
    from 16 state attorneys general, led by Iowa Attorney General
    Brenna Bird, where they express opposition to Prop 12 and ask
    Congress to act.
        Without objection, those will be entered into the record.
        [The letters referred to are located on p. 153 and p. 154.]
        The Chairman. I am now pleased to introduce the gentleman
    from North Carolina, Mr. Don Davis, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr.
    Chairman, and to the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Chairman, I need to start with a point of order today.
    If I am not mistaken, I heard earlier that Illinois somewhere
    claimed to be the best pork of the world. That is impossible.
    Mr. Figures knows that is correct, and he knew I was coming.
    And Mr. Chairman, we need to strike that from the record
    because we know that North Carolina has the best barbecue, the
    best pork of all.
        The Chairman. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I am not
    quite sure about striking from the record, but I am more than
    happy to host a bacon-off, and myself and the Ranking Member
    will be the judges, and you two bring it on. Bring the bacon.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Well, thank you so much, Mr.
    Chairman and Madam Ranking Member. I do want, for the record,
    to enter into the record that Kinston, North Carolina, located
    in eastern North Carolina, is the Guinness Book of World
    Records holder for selling the most pulled-pork barbecue
    sandwiches in an 8 hour window, and we broke the record after 5
    hours.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The article referred to is located on p. 250.]
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. I am very concerned when I
    think about why in the world are we here on this topic today. I
    am very concerned when one state would take an action that
    would disrupt commerce in another state. California's law
    requires significant investment for pork producers across the
    country, whether they sell into the market or not. Many of you
    may not know, but North Carolina has longstanding regulations
    limiting the expansion of sow barns and the building of new
    barns. Prop 12 and measures like it uniquely burden producers
    in eastern North Carolina.
        Let's be clear. North Carolina's First Congressional
    District, and to be on the record, I have more than 1.3 million
    hogs and pigs in my district, way more than people, and we need
    a fix. A fix. That is the bottom line. People back home are
    trying to figure out what in the world? What do we come up here
    and do? They need a fix. We need a long-term solution that does
    not disadvantage the eastern North Carolina producers or others
    and potentially put some out of business. I will work with
    anyone, to be clear, anyone on this Committee to come up with
    that fix and a workable solution. But for us to not address
    this, I believe, would be a fatal mistake, a fatal mistake for
    our pork producers and my constituents.
        I have a question, Ms. Cook. Given the regulations on
    building and expanding sow barns in North Carolina, what unique
    challenges does that present to producers in eastern North
    Carolina? Will North Carolina producers be disadvantaged in
    complying with Prop 12 or a further patchwork compared to other
    states?
        Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. In the event that we
    see more states adopt these measures or we are facing a
    patchwork and North Carolina producers need to incur those
    costs to comply, due to the restrictions that you described,
    they may have fewer options than other producers in other
    states. The only option available to them may be to reduce
    their sow herd, which would reduce their production and their
    revenues, and that may not be workable for those operations.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. When I speak to producers back
    home, they have a fear of the future of their farms. I mean,
    there is so much going on right now in the agriculture
    community. A whole lot is going on. And I think about costs,
    disasters we are experiencing in North Carolina, concerns I
    still hear with tariffs, so much that is out there, and all
    people want to do is go to work, make an honest day's living.
    And many of the people back home say to me, ``I just want to
    turn it over to the kid for a future generation.'' That is it.
    That is it.
        Ms. Lashmet and Mr. Hord, I am going to go ahead and put
    you in, can you share briefly your thoughts? What do you see in
    terms of in the next few years for producers if absolutely
    nothing happens?
        Ms. Lashmet. If nothing happens and Congress doesn't act, I
    think the concern for producers is that there could be
    additional state laws that are passed. And I think it is one
    thing if there are state laws that mirror the California law. I
    think it could be another thing if we end up with a patchwork
    of laws where, as we have discussed, it makes it difficult for
    producers to be able to comply with multiple versions of this.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. I am going to give Mr. Hord my
    last 10 seconds.
        Mr. Hord. Yes. I agree. The patchwork of states would be
    devastating to our pork industry.
        And I would also like the record to show that I would like
    to be part of the pork tasting. So thank you.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the
    record and I yield back my time.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and Mr. Hord's
    interest is so noted.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
    Nunn, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Nunn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Don Davis, my fellow veteran here, and
    not only a veteran in the military, but a veteran pork-
    producing state as well. And while I agree with you, Illinois
    and North Carolina produce some of the finest pork in the
    world, no one produces more pork than Iowa. So we will have you
    out to the Iowa State Fair, flip some pork chops, and Chairman,
    Ranking Member, we will have you both as judges in the case. I
    think Mr. Hord's going to join us in on that. The great Iowa
    State Fair starts in 2 weeks, folks. The countdown has begun.
        With this, I also want to say thank you very much to Mr.
    Schuiteman and Ms. Cook. Ms. Cook is actually from the great
    State of Iowa. In fact, she has helped raise some of that great
    pork that has come up, and her incredible family, her mom and
    dad, are here with her today too. So we are glad to have an
    Iowa gal here who not only is an accomplished economist, but
    she has actually seen firsthand how this operates.
        And that is one of the reasons we are all here today,
    right? Forty-nine states all want to be able to deliver their
    products, but for one state, which is telling all the rest of
    the Union they can't do it. We know this to be true, and this
    is bad policy out of California. It is not just bad policy, it
    is an insult to every hardworking farmer in this country who
    has been doing it right for generations.
        I know this much to be true. In Iowa, we raise 25 million
    hogs per year. I know in California, they consume 13 percent of
    all pork in this country. So this is not a war against the
    people of California, this is a clarification of a bad policy
    that has been taken by a few politicians in Sacramento.
        Not only is Iowa the top state producing pork, but right
    now, our hardworking farmers are facing the toughest economy in
    decades, and the last thing they need is more red tape, not
    from Washington, D.C., but from the left coast 2,000 miles
    away. These regulations aren't just affecting Iowa farmers
    either. Proposition 12 has had a tangible impact on consumers
    across the country, and I will go back to California on this
    one. They have seen a price increase of more than 20 percent on
    most pork products, with loins costing 41 percent more than
    ever before, which means they have to come to the Iowa State
    Fair as well to be able to get bacon and pork chops actually at
    a livable price.
        The Supreme Court was very clear here. It is up to Congress
    to help define this space. We all agree, interstate commerce is
    clear. No one state should hold the other 49 hostage. Which is
    exactly why I teamed up with my very good friend, Ashley
    Hinson, a great Representative from Iowa, on Save Our Bacon Act
    (H.R. 4673). This is an effort to put the nonsense and Federal
    Government back into the driver's seat on interstate commerce
    and take away the nonsense that has been created by the few.
    Our bill makes it clear. If you don't grow it, you don't get to
    regulate it.
        So Mr. Schuiteman, I would like to talk with you a little
    bit here, particularly on the area of workforce safety. What is
    the most dangerous aspect of Proposition 12 for the producers
    or workers inside barns every day as a result of this nefarious
    proposition?
        Mr. Schuiteman. I think if we lose the ability to confine
    our females at key times, that creates danger for the stockman
    potentially. As I have talked about a few different times
    already today, we have developed our housing systems with a
    three-pronged approach in mind, and safety of the stockman
    being one of those prongs, and welfare of the animal,
    production of the animal. So truly, one of the dangerous things
    inside the barn, especially with the breeding herd, is if we
    don't have control over when and where we can confine our
    animals a little bit for our safety, for their safety, that
    adds risk.
        Mr. Nunn. We just had Secretary Brooke Rollins come out to
    Iowa, and she saw one of our hog farms here, and we had five
    veterinarians on-hand who were there providing great care for
    the livestock. Nobody takes better livestock care than a
    farmer, particularly one who it is part of their breed and
    their herd. When you look at this, is there a biosecurity
    concern that comes up from states arbitrarily throwing mandates
    like this down?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Yes, the concern comes from the inspectors
    that are potentially brought in. It takes roughly 3 days for
    pig disease to be free from the human body if you have
    interacted with it. It is not that it affects the human body,
    but the human body carries it. And so if the inspection process
    doesn't honor that 3 day separation, the potential for disease
    spread is very real.
        Mr. Nunn. Ms. Cook, in the time that we have left, not only
    are you an accomplished economist, as we highlighted here, what
    does Proposition 12 do to a family farm like yours?
        Ms. Cook. I think when we talk about the uncertainty that
    the potential of more measures or a conflicting patchwork
    creates, it really jeopardizes not just future investment
    decisions, but the ability to pass those farms on for
    generations.
        Mr. Nunn. I would absolutely agree. Let's not only save our
    bacon, let's save our family farms. And Mr. Chairman, we look
    forward to seeing you at the state fair for that pork
    competition. I yield my time.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Before I introduce our next Member, I want to ask unanimous
    consent to enter into the record comments that Canada provided
    to the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade
    Committee that outlines their concerns with Proposition 12.
    Also submitting a letter from Canadian, United States, and
    Mexican Government officials where they outlined their concerns
    with Proposition 12 and Question 3.
        Without objection, those will be entered into the record.
        [The comments and letter referred to are located on p. 150,
    and p. 151.]
        The Chairman. And now I am pleased to recognize Mr. Messmer
    from Indiana for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses for being here today.
        It seems like some of my Democratic colleagues have picked
    this issue to finally care about states' rights. Mr. Cushman,
    does section 12007 restrict any state from implementing their
    own standards of production, or does it simply clarify that
    states can only implement production standards for livestock
    producers in their own states?
        Mr. Cushman. Thank you for the question. You are correct.
    It only limits states to regulate products within their own
    states, production within their own states. It does clarify,
    though, that states are not permitted to regulate production
    outside of their own state.
        Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. I want to call attention to a
    discrepancy I have seen in the Committee room today. For the
    past couple months, myself and other Republicans on the
    Committee have wrongfully been accused of limiting food access
    for Americans in need, but some of those Members who most
    adamantly support those false claims now support a regulation
    that has single-handedly increased pork prices in California by
    at least 20 percent and is likely to increase prices nationally
    if left unchecked.
        Ms. Cook, your written testimony identifies the consumer
    prices that California residents have experienced as a result
    of Prop 12. In the absence of a fix, how will Prop 12 impact
    consumer prices? And can we expect it will threaten access to
    affordable, protein-dense pork products nationwide?
        Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. A big reason why
    those prices are higher is because it is much more expensive to
    get that pork to consumers and to produce it. So in a situation
    where more states adopt these measures or a patchwork of
    regulations, more producers are required to undertake more
    costly production practices, that could then result in those
    much higher prices for not just California but any impacted
    market.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Former Ag Secretary Vilsack said
    during a visit to the Hill last Congress, ``Without
    Congressional action on Prop 12, there will be chaos in the
    meat marketplace.'' Mr. Hord, in your written testimony, it
    identifies a threat of a patchwork of state regulations to the
    American marketplace. If any state can restrict the sale of
    products to wage ideological warfare, do you agree that this
    creates an environment of instability?
        Mr. Hord. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    Definitely one of my personal biggest concerns of this is that
    the opportunity for other states to pass non-scientific laws
    that would impact or force me to continue to have to make
    changes to our facilities in order to produce pork.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. If there was any evidence to the
    necessity of Prop 12, the marketplace nightmare would at least
    be for a worthy cause. But, Mr. Hord, you state that Prop 12
    advances no public interest, not in animal safety, not human
    health, and certainly not on-farm innovation. Mr. Hord, would
    you agree that Prop 12 is just another attack against
    production agriculture by interest groups that lack an
    understanding of the industry?
        Mr. Hord. Yes, it definitely was drafted from a perspective
    that didn't have input from swine producers or from
    veterinarians, and so therefore, definitely was an unscientific
    mandate from another state.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Hord. I would like to thank all
    the witnesses who have reiterated the necessity of a
    Congressional fix to Prop 12. I stand prepared to move forward
    with a solution that keeps our food affordable and your farmers
    profitable.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        It is with a deep apology I recognize the gentleman from
    California that I should have recognized last time, Mr.
    Carbajal, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    the witnesses that are here today.
        Look, a lot has been said about California pork, but we all
    know it is the best in the whole country, all right? I know
    some of my colleagues feel otherwise, but we still make some
    pretty good pork, not as much, but we still do.
        Professor Lashmet, in your testimony, you noted that during
    the Supreme Court hearing on Prop 12, the State of California
    highlighted that some farmers had transitioned their operations
    to be Prop 12-compliant as proof that these adjustments can
    successfully be made. Given the court's decision to uphold Prop
    12, what can Congress learn from those producers about how we
    can encourage stronger protection for animals while also making
    sure farmers and ranchers have the support they need to
    succeed?
        Ms. Lashmet. I think this is a great example of there being
    two voices, right, and folks on both sides of this issue, and I
    think that it would be useful for Congress to speak to
    producers who have made those compliance decisions to get their
    input on whether they were useful for the farm, whether they
    did help to increase what they believe is animal husbandry
    standards on the farm or not. I think talking to those
    producers would be very useful.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Professor Lashmet, as noted
    earlier, the Supreme Court upheld California's Prop 12
    authority to establish animal welfare standards for products
    sold in California, affirming states' rights. From your
    professional perspective, how critical is it for states to
    maintain authority to enact such states' rights protections?
        Ms. Lashmet. I think certainly under the 10th Amendment any
    right not reserved to Congress is reserved to the states, and
    so animal welfare standards are certainly an example of a type
    of law that has historically been reserved to the states, and
    they have made those types of laws. Now, certainly, we have the
    balance there between the 10th Amendment and the Commerce
    Clause, the power that Congress has, and I think that is where
    it is going to be a complex decision for you all to find a
    balance between your wanting to act in interstate commerce and
    still preserving those states' rights under the 10th Amendment.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. And finally, Professor Lashmet,
    how can states continue to serve as leaders in addressing
    complex issues like animal welfare while respecting interstate
    commerce?
        Ms. Lashmet. Again, I think that is the balance between
    that 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause rights, and I think
    California enacted this law that imposes their standards within
    their own state, and certainly, there have been a number of
    other states, I think 11, that have laws on the books, at least
    related to egg production, that do impose standards on
    producers within their own states. The distinction here is
    California's law also imposes those standards on any product
    sold within the state, which is broader--whether or not
    appropriate, I will leave that to you all--but certainly
    broader than actions other states have taken.
        Mr. Carbajal. Great. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. He yields back.
        Before I introduce our next Member, I would just ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the
    American Association of Swine Veterinarians where they oppose
    Proposition 12 due to animal welfare concerns.
        Without objection, that will be entered into the record.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 159.]
        The Chairman. I am now pleased to introduce the gentleman
    from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And while I appreciate my colleague from California talking
    about the best pork coming from there, I do come from the 8th
    District of North Carolina, and we all know North Carolina has
    the best pork.
        Thank you all on the panel for sharing today your
    information and your expertise. Let me ask, Ms. Cook, just one
    quick question. Looking through an economic lens, do you think
    that large producers or small producers are more likely to be
    able to convert to Prop 12 compliance?
        Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. We have talked a lot
    about the costs associated with complying with Prop 12 and
    measures like it, and for many reasons, larger producers are
    going to be the best positioned to undertake those costs. They
    can spread costs out over more units of production. They also
    have just certain efficiencies that come along with size.
        Mr. Harris. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Cushman, as we all know, the work of farmers and
    ranchers is long and grueling, and they are constantly
    subjected to changing regulations, changing market prices, and
    weather events. Most producers have long enjoyed the freedom to
    raise their animals in whatever way is suitable for their
    individual farming needs. With Prop 12, as we have discussed
    today, that freedom has been taken away, and similar state
    mandates seem to threaten it further. Mr. Cushman, how do you
    expect producers to navigate the patchwork of state laws that
    will ensue if a fix for Prop 12 is not provided? And will legal
    advice be yet another thing that producers consider before
    making production decisions?
        Mr. Cushman. Thank you for the excellent question. And to
    piggyback a little bit off of Ms. Cook's response, the largest
    players, the ones most able to handle these kinds of
    requirements, getting legal advice is something that a much
    larger farm will be able to handle than a smaller-, medium-
    sized farm. With more of these regulations coming out, more
    conflicting potential regulations, that makes it much, much
    harder for a smaller-, medium-sized farm to survive, and to
    become compliant with one of these laws would require
    significant resources to do so.
        Mr. Harris. Okay. There is a legislative solution to the
    problem that we have been discussing today. In fact, I heard it
    mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Nunn, a few moments ago. And I
    also am a proud cosponsor of Representative Hinson's Save Our
    Bacon Act, which says that a state can't impose a standard on
    the production of livestock outside their own borders. Mr.
    Cushman, again, can you just state clearly for the record, does
    the Save the Bacon Act trample on states' rights, as some have
    claimed?
        Mr. Cushman. It does not trample on states' rights. They
    still maintain the right to regulate production within their
    state. That is something that states have traditionally done.
    All this does is prevent states from regulating outside of
    their own borders and by putting inspectors onto Iowa farms or
    North Carolina farms.
        Mr. Harris. Well, I agree with you that the language here
    really does strike the right balance of giving states free rein
    to act within their own borders but ensuring that they don't
    set mandates for the other 49. As a conservative, I am
    typically partial to states' rights arguments, but the
    Constitution is clear that there are several instances where
    the Federal Government must act. And in this situation, as we
    continue to hear just the damage and the dangers that come with
    Prop 12, this may very well be that time.
        So thank you again, panel, all, for being here to share.
    And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Before I introduce our next Member for his 5 minute
    questioning, I do seek unanimous consent to enter into the
    record a letter from the Food Equity Alliance, where they
    oppose Proposition 12 due to consumer affordability issues. I
    will just read the first sentence of that. ``We, the Food
    Equity Alliance of California, feel a responsibility to
    reinforce to you that Proposition 12 is exacerbating food
    insecurity in California.''
        So without objection, the letter will be entered into the
    record.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 156.]
        The Chairman. I now I recognize the gentleman from Ohio,
    Mr. Taylor, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
    Member Craig, for holding this hearing today, and thank you to
    all the witnesses for being here and for the sacrifices you
    made to spend some time with us today.
        One of the main reasons I ran for Congress is to bring
    economic activity to Appalachia. Small towns are what make up
    southern Ohio, and these towns largely rely on our family
    farms. That is why Prop 12 is so devastating. It pushes small
    family farms out of business. The bigger operations can afford
    to comply with the ridiculous regulations, while smaller farms
    are forced out of the market, and 96 percent of the farms in my
    district are family farms. I am afraid that Prop 12 will only
    cause more consolidation in the industry. That means fewer of
    the next generation coming back to the farm.
        Mr. Schuiteman, can you talk more about how California's
    Prop 12 and other similar state regulations will cause further
    consolidation in the ag industry and what that would mean for
    rural areas like mine that are already seeing continued loss of
    population?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Yes, we have touched on this before, but
    just to say again, the cost of retrofitting facilities, we have
    talked about how these are generational family farms, and so
    the facilities they have, just like the knowledge has been
    built up over generations, and so the cost of taking one
    facility and turning it into something not really totally
    different, but still different, is significant.
        And I have seen myself, and I have seen other friends of
    mine who have just made a decision, you know what, with the
    uncertainty, we could build something that is going to end up
    being wrong if something else gets passed, and so we are just
    going to sit out for a while and see what happens.
        Mr. Taylor. And that can lead to them getting out of the
    farm business completely, right?
        Mr. Schuiteman. Completely, yes.
        Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you.
        The 10th Amendment preserves states' rights to adopt their
    own ill-advised policies of many kinds, and California has
    certainly taken full advantage of that. But too often, as with
    Prop 12, California's bad policies seep out into other states
    to the detriment of the entire nation. When the Supreme Court
    issued its flawed decision in the Prop 12 case a few years ago,
    I think it was a clear sign that it will be up to Congress to
    resolve this issue.
        Mr. Cushman, do you see a case similar to this coming to
    the Supreme Court in the future, or do you think it is solely
    on Congress to act?
        Mr. Cushman. Thank you for the question. The Supreme Court
    decision was very, very difficult to understand and parse
    through. I mentioned earlier that legal scholars have called it
    a paradox, and they have called it a mess to try to understand.
    Judges have disagreed on what it means. To reiterate, you need
    at least five justices to win a case of the nine. Six agreed
    with our legal theory, five agreed we had established a legal
    theory but didn't line up quite right.
        As to this issue on Prop 12, I do not see this proceeding
    in the courts anymore. There is a challenge to Massachusetts
    Question 3, which is in the First Circuit appellate court right
    now. On this issue, it seems fairly clear that it is up to
    Congress to act. Justice Gorsuch's opinion made it very clear
    that Congress does have this authority to preempt state laws
    that it finds are unwise under the Commerce Clause, and so this
    would be up to Congress to fix right now.
        Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you.
        Turning to my fellow Buckeye where we just kind of know we
    make the best pork, we don't have to talk about it all the
    time. In your testimony, you dove into the animal welfare side
    of Prop 12 discussion, and I am sure one of the common
    responses we will hear from certain groups will be how
    important Prop 12 is because of the issue of animal welfare.
    Mr. Hord, can you just dispel some of the myths surrounding the
    animal welfare piece specifically? Can you talk about how Prop
    12 is actually worse for animal welfare in many cases?
        Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you, Congressman. We as farmers
    certainly are concerned about animal welfare, and it is the
    priority. If we do not take good care of our animals, then that
    is a detriment to us and our livelihood. So housing a lot of
    times is not a determining factor of animal welfare. There is
    nutrition, there is animal husbandry, there are different other
    systems that happen. I can't definitively say that animal
    welfare, the impact of it is any different on our farm because
    we care for our animals diligently.
        Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thanks again to all of you for being
    here. And Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    witnesses being here today. Ms. Rocha? Is that how you say your
    name, Ms. Rocha? Rocha? Okay. That was Alabama version of
    Rocha.
        Question. You know that since Prop 12 was fully implemented
    on January 1st of 2024, that retail pork prices in California
    have risen by an average of 20 percent with specific cuts, pork
    loins at 41 percent. How have these prices impacted the small
    family-owned and operated Latino businesses that you represent?
        Ms. Rocha. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Well, 20 percent is a very
    high number, and we have already experienced many other
    challenges of regulation, so this is yet another regulation on
    top of those that affects us. So, as you can imagine, small
    businesses such as minority-owned restaurants, we represent
    about 1,400 members, it absolutely affects us negatively by
    increasing prices and having to make difficult choices of
    either not offering pork because of the prices. What I am
    looking at, what I am representing is the consumer side of it
    with regard to the pricing.
        Mr. Moore. Yes, I mean, with inflation, you just add
    another 20 percent in addition to that, and that is not very
    beneficial. I quoted Ronald Reagan in here yesterday. He said,
    ``The government's idea on the economy is when it is moving,
    you tax it. If it keeps moving, you regulate it. When it fails,
    you subsidize it.'' Very often, I think our regulations are
    causing some serious problems, certainly for consumers, and now
    for producers nationally.
        So Ms. Cook, since you are the economic expert on the
    panel, how many Californians--I will go back to you, too, Ms.
    Rocha, on this. Is it Rocha, did we say?
        Ms. Rocha. Oh, Rocha.
        Mr. Moore. Sorry, I have to get that right.
        Ms. Rocha. It is okay.
        Mr. Moore. So how many Californians do the two of you think
    would purchase or continue to purchase the Prop 12-raised price
    pork given the chances if they could purchase the less
    affordable option that was not Prop 12? What do you think, Ms.
    Cook? Any idea? Do we have any research or any thoughts on
    that?
        Ms. Cook. I think what the data is showing us, that with
    these much higher prices, Californians as a whole, what the
    data is showing is they are willing and able to purchase less
    pork. So with that choice restricted from them, we are seeing
    them consume less but still paying and spending more.
        Mr. Moore. I mean, yes, the families are still struggling,
    right, so if they have an option, if they can buy something
    that is 20 percent cheaper or 41 percent cheaper in the case of
    special cuts, I can imagine why they wouldn't buy the less
    expensive. What about it, Ms. Rocha? What do you think?
        Ms. Rocha. Yes, I know that our consumers are diverse, and
    we appreciate having the choice. So I think that the majority
    of our restaurant owners would appreciate having the
    availability to purchase pork at a reasonable and affordable
    price so that they can make money in their businesses. But I
    think, overall, I do believe that we would appreciate having
    the choice of purchasing whatever type of pork we would like
    to.
        Mr. Moore. I mean, I agree. In a restaurant business, labor
    costs and food costs are two of your highest costs, and so if
    you can help trim that, it helps the business survive the long
    haul, so to speak.
        Anyway, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield a full
    minute and 45 seconds back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it.
    I guess I am the only California Republican on this dais here
    today, so we do have a different perspective of me living that
    firsthand as a citizen, as well as an ag producer there and my
    just inherent desire that why would we foist California's
    problems on the rest of the country? Why would we foist L.A.
    and San Francisco thinking on the other 49 states other than
    those that have already jumped in?
        So I look at who is driving it, and these are the same foes
    as a long time. There is the American Humane Society, which are
    good folks at the national level and the American level. Then
    you have the Humane Society of the United States, which has
    carefully crafted that name to differentiate themselves from
    the American Humane Society, and certainly their mission is
    crafted completely different than it is about taking care of
    animals individually. They raise hundreds of millions of
    dollars, and they spend about one percent on the actual humane
    treatment of animals, unlike the syrupy ads you would see on
    TV.
        They are very well-heeled, and they do battle in
    California, I will have to say, pretty effectively because one
    issue I sided with them on was cutting the fins off sharks and
    just leaving the rest of the shark, which doesn't seem very
    sportsmanlike to me. If you are going to take game, then you
    should use all the game and use it respectfully. But then, one
    thing after another, it has been on using hounds for hunting
    bear and bobcat, which is actually something helpful for
    hunters to differentiate with which one they should be looking
    at and which one they should leave.
        But then we get down to this issue. The Humane Society of
    the United States is well-known to be against the use of
    livestock for people's nutrition. So death by a thousand cuts,
    I should say, one bit at a time, they are trying to take that
    away. They are trying to take away hunting rights. They don't
    want people hunting game on any lands. And so this is what you
    are up against. So this is a death by a thousand cuts by one
    bit at a time.
        We had Proposition 2, 10 years before Proposition 12, which
    worked to try and make larger areas for animals. There is an
    argument for it, right? And the voters passed it. That was
    2008, as I recall here. And that was in order to have larger
    cages for hens, as well as more space for veal and others.
    Well, 2 years later, they worked to amend that interpretation
    that other states would now have to do also the same under Prop
    2 with their hens, increasing their cage size, which we ran
    into that my first term in this Committee here. So California
    was dictating how that would be done. So that is Prop 2 back in
    2008.
        Someone was asking earlier, will they keep doing this? Yes,
    California can keep doing it anytime they want because you saw
    10 years later Prop 12 was passed, and it is not too tough for
    well-heeled organizations to put these things on the ballot and
    then convince voters via well-heeled ads running often on TV--I
    remember the Prop 12 ads are very dramatic. They had pictures
    of animal abuse going on, which we all are against, and what
    they were depicting would actually be prosecuted without any of
    these laws. There was one particular graphic scene where
    somebody--I think it was on a dairy--was picking up a cow with
    a forklift, an injured or very ill cow, and so that was shown
    as abusive, and this was the picture they were painting of what
    livestock raising is like in California.
        And so the threat is constantly going to be there from
    organizations like this being able to place for $3 million and
    a lot of sympathy these issues on the ballot and get them
    passed in the Bay Area and L.A. and some of those coastal areas
    like that.
        If I showed you the map of how these votes went, especially
    Prop 12, which took it to an extreme, all the internal counties
    in California, all the ones that have any kind of significance
    of agriculture voted against Prop 12. It is the coastal areas
    and the elite areas of California that are voting this stuff
    in.
        So I guess in my remaining time I would throw out there,
    this does drive costs. We heard a bunch of drama earlier about
    people getting kicked off the program or people are going to
    go--there will be much hunger, people go hungry when really
    what the focus was on illegal immigrants receiving benefits and
    people that should be at work receiving endless benefits as
    well.
        So I guess throwing it back to the panel, if you want to
    comment further later with other questioners, you just see this
    as affecting the cost of food for everybody, for people using
    SNAP, for all consumers, and anybody who wants to dwell on that
    in further conversations since I burned my 5 minutes, we know
    what the fact is. It is going to make it harder on everybody to
    afford food across the country, those on SNAP especially that
    we hear so much concern about on the other side that we are
    supposedly kicking off on this thing. So California can keep
    passing this stuff. We need to resist it and not foist our bad
    ideas on the rest of the country.
        So I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Before I introduce Mr. Baird, I will take the opportunity
    to seek unanimous consent. There has been some misleading
    information that Pennsylvania, which is a growing, hog-
    producing state, that there is complete opposition in
    Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, my home state,
    to basically finding a path forward to overcome Proposition 12.
        So seeking unanimous consent to submit for the record an
    op-ed by the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau President, Chris Hoffman,
    where he offers support for section 12009 of the Farm, Food,
    and National Security Act of 2024.
        Without objection, this letter will be entered into the
    record.
        [The article referred to is located on p. 149.]
        The Chairman. And now I am pleased to introduce the
    gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
    witnesses for being here. I just can't resist--and I hope you
    will indulge me, Mr. Chairman. I just can't resist some of the
    things I have done in my past, but not all things. Anyway, I
    have a Ph.D. in monogastric nutrition, and everyone in this
    room is a monogastric, whether you know it or not, but mono--
    single--gastric stomach. And so I am going to stand up for the
    pigs in this situation because we needed to recognize how
    capable they are of adapting to various kinds of environments
    and production systems.
        And when I was at Purdue working on a master's degree, we
    compared gestation systems, and one of those was a pasture
    system, the next was a monoslope group housing where you had a
    slatted floor up front. We used to call them the Cargill unit.
    And then we had a tethered unit as well where you tied them up
    with a neck.
        And the thing I want to point out here is that we found
    over time in that research project--and I found out on the farm
    when I was growing up--you end up culling those animals that
    aren't well suited to that environment or that building. And a
    producer actually knows which is best and which produces the
    most and most efficient. Absolutely, they know exactly how that
    works. And so what we found, too, as a sideline, I did some of
    the earliest work in this country--Europe had done it for a
    long time--in artificial insemination in pigs, and that was
    part of that project.
        But back to what I wanted to mention, we found in that
    research that through natural culling you actually ended up
    with a suite of animals or a group of animals that was well
    suited to that environment. Some of them never really adapted
    to the tethering situation, for example, but there were others
    that when they went to the farrowing house and came back, they
    knew where their stall was in that facility and would go back.
    They tended to be the more timid kinds of individuals who were
    out in the pasture, they could interact with other individuals,
    and in the group housing you had that same kind of concern. So
    I just couldn't resist sharing that.
        And the other thing I would share in terms of pigs, the
    reason that they look for water and look for them, they end up
    being in mud holes, so to speak, but they do not have sweat
    glands. So the only means they have to cool themselves is
    evaporative cooling, and that takes water. And if you really
    knew pigs, they would prefer to have a nice just a comfortable
    shower than they would to lay in the mud hole, but that is what
    it is.
        And so you have to give these animals credit, and I don't
    think a lot of people recognize how important it is to have the
    animals perform well and the efficiency that it takes to be
    profitable in that situation.
        So I have probably said enough, Mr. Chairman, but I could
    share other stories with you, but I can tell you want me to go
    on.
        Anyway, I want to ask this question from everyone because
    the National Pork Producers were concerned about Prop 12, and
    we have been concerned about Prop 12 for a long time. But Prop
    12 doesn't inherently improve animal welfare. In fact, the
    American Veterinary Medical Association, the largest
    association representing veterinarians, supports the Chairman's
    fix. They do not support Prop 12 because it fails to follow the
    science, and it limits the flexibility of farmers and vets in
    order to best serve their animals.
        So I would like to ask our producers first, what is your
    experience with Prop 12 style of housing for sows? Is the
    injury incidence higher in those situations, and isn't that bad
    for animals? So I will start with our two producers.
        Mr. Hord?
        Mr. Hord. Thank you, Congressman. Our experience is that
    animal welfare is a complex issue of multiple things. As you,
    being a Ph.D.--that is impressive--nutritionist, and you
    understand there is nutrition, there is animal husbandry, and
    our experience is that the biggest impact is how we care for
    them and how we take care of them is the leading indicator of
    animal welfare. Thank you.
        Mr. Baird. And you certainly have to recognize that a
    producer, how are you going to make any money if you don't take
    care of the animals?
        Mr. Hord. Right.
        Mr. Baird. And so that is a very important aspect of animal
    husbandry so good answer.
        Mr. Hord. Yep, for sure.
        Mr. Baird. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Schuiteman. Thank you, Mr. Baird, for the question and
    for your research. I don't have a lot to add to what Mr. Hord
    said or to your experiences, but just the ability to care for
    your animals, and a big piece of husbandry is understanding the
    animal and knowing how the animal acts and knowing what that
    animal is going to do, and so I don't have much to add, but I
    thank you for your experience.
        Mr. Baird. Anyone else care to comment?
        So anyway, I guess I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that--I
    guess I have already gone over my time, haven't I? Anyway,
    thank you for being here and sharing your expertise with us and
    for this Committee. It helps us make better decisions. Thank
    you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Well, Mr. Baird, thank you for sharing your
    experience and your knowledge, much appreciated, my friend.
        Before we adjourn, I need to extend my apologies. The
    Ranking Member wanted to extend her apologies. She was pulled
    away. She was hoping that it would time up better, but she
    certainly sends her appreciation to all of our witnesses who
    went through the time, the cost to travel here and to share
    your perspectives.
        And let me add my closing as well. Let's be clear about
    Prop 12. Prop 12 has hurt small- and medium-sized producers.
    Prop 12 has hurt consumers with increased costs, impacting food
    affordability. That is something we talk a lot about in a
    bipartisan way in this Committee. Prop 12 has the potential, as
    we have heard, to actually result in harm for the sows through
    the compliance that is required.
        Prop 12 ignores agriculture science. And quite frankly,
    American agriculture can be defined as science, technology, and
    innovation.  As we have heard today, Prop 12 has hurt our small
    family-owned restaurants and folks in that supply chain for our
    restaurants. It is an industry that survives on only, I would
    say, a range of three to ten percent profit, closer to three
    percent most days. And so any mandate of adding costs will hurt
    those family-owned businesses and jobs and food accessibility
    for folks that are looking to those restaurants for their
    nutrition.
        So the question I have, some have claimed that Prop 12 is a
    mandate. But what is a mandate? A hundred percent? I would say
    that is probably a mandate. Ninety percent? That is pretty
    good. That would be a mandate. Eighty percent? Mandate. Let's
    go down. I think 51 percent would be a mandate, maybe 50
    percent. Now let's be generous. Say 40 percent is a mandate.
    And although the Prop 12 initiative passed in 2018, it was far
    from a mandate for the record. Only 20 percent of Californians
    voted in that election.
        And of those 20 percent, only 13 percent that voted in
    California approved this ill-thought provision, 13 percent of
    Californians. That is not a mandate. And I think that is why we
    have seen all the signals, not just from Justice Gorsuch
    because I read it from at least two other justices in the
    Supreme Court who said this is a responsibility Congress has to
    fix.
        This Committee will consider a measured correction that
    preserves states' rights to control their internal agriculture
    practices, will protect interstate commerce, and preserves
    states' animal health regulations and laws.
        And so a huge thank you to our witnesses for coming here
    and sharing your perspective and your expertise. I thought this
    was an outstanding hearing.
        A thank you to our staff for all of your work to make this
    a successful hearing, and to the Members who, quite frankly,
    are under a lot of pressure today with a lot of things that are
    going on and the time constraints that we are under that came
    out and asked questions today.
        So under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
    hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
    additional material and supplementary written responses from
    the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
        This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    Submitted Article by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania

    [https://pfb.com/congress-must-act-on-state-agricultural-production-
    standards-to-protect-producers-and-consumers/]
    Congress Must Act on State Agricultural Production Standards to Protect
            Producers and Consumers
    [May 24, 2024]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    By Chris Hoffman, President, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau

        As farmers, we recognize that Americans are increasingly interested
    in where their food comes from and how it is produced. This is
    especially true with how animals are raised for food production, which
    has led some states to impose emotionally satisfying yet
    counterproductive animal welfare standards for products sold within
    their borders--regardless of where those products originate.
        Make no mistake, farmers are committed to the proper care of the
    animals they have been entrusted with. They are our livelihood and a
    large part of the legacy we hope to pass along to future generations.
    Yet rather than protecting animal health, the aforementioned state
    standards now threaten to create a patchwork of ill-conceived laws and
    regulations that not only fail to protect animals but also increases
    consumer costs. This unscientific law weakens food security, which is
    linked to national security, and threatens the livelihoods of small
    family farms that are the backbone of Pennsylvania agriculture. To
    prevent these negative outcomes, Congress must act--and the new Federal
    farm bill offers an opportunity for such action.
        The 2018 adoption of California's Proposition 12 (Prop 12), a
    ballot initiative prohibiting the sale of eggs, veal meat and pork
    products from animals unless they meet the state's confinement
    standards, is the most recent state action illustrating the need for a
    Federal solution to this issue. California consumes about 15% of the
    nation's pork, while producing less than a tenth of a percent of it,
    meaning they must rely on out-of-state production to meet their demand.
    That means pork producers outside the state must follow California
    standards if they wish to do business there, regardless of their own
    state's laws and regulations.
        Due to the implications of California's law on interstate commerce,
    the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the National Pork
    Producers Council (NPPC) filed a legal challenge which was rejected in
    May 2023 by the U. S. Supreme Court, thus returning the issue to
    Congress. If the House and Senate fail to act to remedy this situation,
    one state will be allowed to dictate business practices for the entire
    nation. This increases the risk of one--or several states--tangling up
    America's entire system of interstate commerce by passing unscientific
    laws limiting or prohibiting the sale of any type of goods from other
    states.
        We believe that Congress must act quickly to ensure that states
    cannot set the rules for interstate commerce. Fortunately, Rep. Glenn
    ``GT'' Thompson, in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. House
    Agriculture Committee, has proposed a common-sense solution to address
    state actions like California's Proposition 12. Chairman Thompson's
    proposal clarifies that states and local governments cannot impose
    standards of production, as a condition for sale or consumption, on
    livestock produced outside of their borders. This protects a producer's
    right to participate in a national market without having to adhere to a
    patchwork of costly compliance requirements. It also protects the
    rights of states and local governments to impose production standards
    as they see fit, but only for livestock raised within their own
    borders.
        Renovations to become compliant with things like Prop 12 are
    financially burdensome for producers of all sizes--especially for many
    small family farms--that are already struggling to remain in operation
    and would likely not be able to stay in business under a Prop 12-like
    regime. The ultimate result will be even more consolidation in
    agriculture among a few large entities, which will inevitably translate
    to increased prices at the grocery store and fewer families who can
    afford high-quality protein-especially those who are already struggling
    with high grocery prices caused by inflation and have no interest in
    paying a ``premium'' for pork raised under a Prop 12-like system.
        Worst of all, the promised improvements to animal health and
    welfare under Prop 12-like standards simply do not materialize, in
    large part because those standards were created by people with little
    to no knowledge or understanding of the realities of veterinary science
    and animal husbandry. In the case of the pork industry, sow mortality
    rates have increased nationwide since the implementation of Prop 12--an
    outcome that the Golden State's Department of Food and Agriculture
    (CDFA) admitted would occur before Prop 12 was implemented.
        The continued presence of Prop 12 (and other state laws like it)
    sets a harmful precedent for animal agriculture and opens the ability
    for states to create a similar patchwork of mandated growing practices
    for beef, poultry, sheep, and/or dairy. Congress must do its duty to
    protect farmers and consumers from unscientific state mandates that
    threaten animal health, economic viability, and interstate commerce.
    Chairman Thompson has crafted a workable solution in the upcoming farm
    bill that can win bipartisan agreement--and which deserves our support.
                                     ______

    Submitted Comment by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                              from Pennsylvania *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: Mr. Thompson's staff submitted only the comment
    submitted by Canada. The hyperlink accesses the full Comment (ID 832)
    which includes New Zealand's comment as well as the United States'
    response.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [https://eping.wto.org/en/TradeConcerns/Details?imsId=832&domainId=TBT]
    United States--State-Level Measures Prescribing Space Requirements for
            Farm Animals (ID 832)

    June 2024 TBT Committee meeting
    Canada
        The representative of Canada provided the following statement.
    California's Farm Animal Confinement measure was initially notified to
    the WTO TBT committee on 7 June 2021, followed by several addenda and a
    notification of the final measure on 12 September 2022. Massachusetts'
    Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals measure was notified as a proposed
    measure on 29 June 2021 and we understand it is currently in effect.
    Canada would like to thank California, Massachusetts and the U.S.
    Federal Government for their bilateral engagements on California's
    Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3. Unfortunately, our core
    concerns remain unaddressed. Canada is a strong proponent of animal
    welfare, as evidenced by our comprehensive Codes of Practice for the
    care and handling of farm animals. We also support the right of
    governments to develop requirements for food production within their
    own jurisdictions. Nevertheless, Canada is concerned about the emerging
    patchwork of subnational regulations across the U.S., which mandate
    prescriptive agricultural production practices for food to be sold
    within a state, including imported products. California and
    Massachusetts' measures prohibit the sale of specified food products,
    such as types and cuts of meat, where animals were not housed in the
    exact manner prescribed in their respective regulations.
        Overall, Canada has five main concerns. 1. These measures are not
    based on evidence or international standards and do not consider the
    entire welfare needs of animals. 2. These measures are not outcome-
    based and do not provide an opportunity for the recognition of
    equivalence. 3. A patchwork of diverging subnational regulations,
    mandating highly-prescriptive production practices, has the potential
    to severely restrict trade in agriculture and agri-food products in the
    U.S. 4. These measures set a concerning precedent: they signal the
    ability of each state to restrict the sale of any product that is not
    produced in an exact manner, irrespective of evidence, outcomes or
    international standards. If this continues to be replicated in other
    states or other regulatory areas, participating in the U.S. market will
    become unmanageable. 5. Less trade-restrictive alternatives do not seem
    to be taken into consideration. To reiterate, Canada strongly supports
    the proper care and handling of farm animals in agriculture production.
    However, Canada feels that these measures do not achieve that objective
    and establish a concerning precedent of a patchwork of subnational
    regulations that restrict trade. We urge the U.S. to consider
    mechanisms to address the growing patchwork of regulations and ensure
    trade is not unduly restricted.
                                     ______

    Submitted Letters by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
                                    Letter 1

    Chairman Glenn Thompson              Ranking Member David Scott
    1301 Longworth House Office          1010 Longworth House Office
     Building                             Building
    Washington D.C. 20515                Washington D.C. 20515
    USA                                  USA

    Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow           Ranking Member John Boozman
    328A Russell Senate Office Building  328A Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington D.C. 20515                Washington D.C. 20515
    USA                                  USA
    Chairman Jason Smith                 Ranking Member Richard Neal
    1139 Longworth House Office          1129 Longworth House Office
     Building                             Building
    Washington D.C. 20515                Washington D.C. 20515
    USA                                  USA
    Chairman Ron Wyden                   Ranking Member Mike Crapo
    219 Dirksen Senate Office Building   219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Washington D.C. 20515                Washington D.C. 20515
    USA                                  USA

        Dear Chairs and Ranking Members:

        Canadian provinces, United States (U.S.) and Mexican states are
    writing to express our concerns with California's Proposition 12 and
    Massachusetts' Question 3. These regulations are extremely concerning
    due to restrictions they place on out-of-state producers to comply with
    arbitrary space requirements and the use of breeding stalls for certain
    animals. North American producers are already committed to high
    standards of animal welfare and care. Our commitment to science and
    rules-based trade ensures a predictable and consistent regulatory
    environment, which is why the absence of scientific justification for
    these regulations is concerning.
        Differing regulations between U.S. states as well as stringent
    requirements for producers can result in a significant financial burden
    for producers who are already facing increased costs for feed, labour,
    and transportation. While some pork producers may have resources to
    adapt to Proposition 12 requirements, the regulations could push small-
    and medium-sized producers out of the market. Pork producers may choose
    not to convert to Proposition 12 requirements due to expensive
    infrastructure conversion costs and costs related to certification,
    audits, segregation for packers, and new registration systems
    throughout the value chain. Alternatively, producers may reduce herd
    size to accommodate space requirements, leading to lower meat supply in
    North America. Additional costs will ultimately be passed onto
    consumers, many who already struggle with inflationary pressures and
    food insecurity.
        Diverging and arbitrary regulations create uncertainty and set a
    dangerous precedent that may encourage other countries and states to
    develop their own trade-disruptive measures. The U.S., Canada, and
    Mexico are all significant pork producers, and our livestock production
    systems are highly integrated. Our three countries represent 14 per
    cent of total global pork production but are responsible for 41 per
    cent of global pork exports. In 2022, North American trade in pork and
    pork products exceeded US$5.5 billion. As deeply connected trading
    partners, we must avoid barriers to trade that undermine the benefits
    of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It is imperative that we uphold
    our collective efforts towards regulatory compatibility and work
    together to ensure consumers have access to affordable food and
    livestock production can remain profitable.
        We strongly believe in the rights of sub-national governments to
    regulate in pursuit of legitimate objectives. However, measures that go
    beyond in-state rights and impose production practices onto out-of-
    state and out-of-country producers are problematic and negatively
    impact stability for the sector. We must ensure that current and future
    state measures do not disrupt our industries, trade, and supply chain
    continuity. U.S. legislators should consider all legislative options to
    address this patchwork of state-level regulations. Provinces and states
    will continue to collaborate with Federal, state, and industry partners
    to look for solutions to eliminate disruptions to the pork sector
    resulting from these regulations.
        The next Tri-National Agricultural Accord is being held in
    Washington, DC, from October 21 to 23, 2024, and participating states
    and provinces would be interested to meet with you to discuss this
    important matter at that time. We encourage you to contact Keith
    Johnson, Trade Policy Analyst, Manitoba Agriculture at [Redacted] with
    any questions or comments.
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Minister Ron Kostyshyn               Minister RJ Sigurdson
    Province of Manitoba                 Province of Alberta

    Minister Rob Flack                   Minister David Marit
    Province of Ontario                  Province of Saskatchewan

    Commissioner Rick Pate               Commissioner Tyler Harper
    State of Alabama                     State of Georgia

    Director Don Lamb                    Secretary Mike Beam
    State of Indiana                     State of Kansas

    Director Chris Chinn                 Commissioner Doug Goehring
    State of Missouri                    State of North Dakota

    Director Brian Baldridge             Secretary Blayne Arthur
    State of Ohio                        State of Oklahoma

    Commissioner Craig Buttars           Commissioner Kent Leonhardt
    State of Utah                        State of West Virginia

    Secretary Jaime Montes Salas
    State of Sinaloa

                                    Letter 2
    June 13, 2023

    Hon. Kevin McCarthy,                 Hon. Chuck Schumer,
    Speaker of the House,                Majority Leader,
    U.S. House of Representatives,       U.S. Senate,
    Washington, D.C.,                    Washington, D.C.;

    Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,                Hon. Mitch McConnell,
    Minority Leader,                     Minority Leader,
    U.S. House of Representatives,       U.S. Senate,
    Washington, D.C.,                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Speaker McCarthy, Leader Schumer, Leader Jeffries, and Leader
    McConnell:

        We are the Governors of 11 states. Collectively, our states
    represent over 54 percent of the country's pork production and 47
    percent of its cattle production. We write to express our
    disappointment in the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in National
    Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468, 2023 WL 3356528 (U.S. May
    11, 2023) (``NPPC''). The NPPC opinion upheld California's Proposition
    12, rejecting the challengers' argument that California's law
    impermissibly burdens interstate commerce in violation of the U.S.
    Constitution.
        Food security is national security. The United States has one of
    the safest and most sustainable domestic food industries in the world.
    Our livestock producers efficiently and humanely produce the massive
    amounts of animal protein necessary to affordably feed our country's
    population. Their resource stewardship is the result of decades of
    applying and refining science-based, tried-and-true production
    techniques.
        Despite California's reliance on its fellow states for food,
    Proposition 12 threatens to disrupt the very system Californians depend
    on for their pork supply. Its strict, activist-drafted requirements for
    pig farming sharply depart from the practices which are lawful in our
    states. As Justice Kavanaugh observed, scientific literature suggests
    that California's requirements could actually worsen animal health and
    welfare. See NPPC, at *23 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part and
    dissenting in part). And due to California's market share, 13 percent
    of the pork market, it would be prohibitively expensive for producers
    to segregate their pork from sales to California as a market
    destination from those products destined elsewhere. Instead, to comply
    with California's onerous and unscientific requirements, pork producers
    will have to bear costs in the hundreds of millions (if not billions)
    of dollars. These costs inevitably pass through the system onto
    consumers, producers, and workers.
        America's pork production system is inherently interstate in its
    scope and integration. A single state, or handful of states, should not
    have the power to radically disrupt that system. Given the profound
    consequences of California's experiment--and cognizant that it should
    be the rare case where Congress exercises its Commerce Clause power to
    preempt state law--this is a situation where Federal legislation is
    appropriate and necessary.
        We support the right of individuals to choose how and what animal
    products they consume, and of each state to lawfully regulate livestock
    production within their respective borders. But the policy and moral
    preferences of voters in one state should not--and cannot--dictate how
    farmers raise their crops and livestock across the country. It is
    imperative that Congress act. Please join us in supporting the
    reintroduction of the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (S.
    2619) that had been introduced during the 117th Congress by Sen. Chuck
    Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS),
    Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), and Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS).
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Governor Kim Reynolds    Governor Jim Pillen      Governor Sarah Sanders
    State of Iowa            State of Nebraska        State of Arkansas

    Governor Eric Holcomb    Governor Tate Reeves     Governor Mike Parson
    State of Indiana         State of Mississippi     State of Missouri

    Governor Greg Gianforte  Governor Joe Lombardo    Governor Kevin Stitt
    State of Montana         State of Nevada          State of Oklahoma

    Governor Greg Abbott     Governor Glenn Youngkin
    State of Texas           Commonwealth of
                              Virginia

                                    Letter 3
    August 9, 2023

    Hon. Kevin McCarthy,                 Hon. Chuck Schumer,
    Speaker of the House,                Majority Leader,
    U.S. House of Representatives,       U.S. Senate,
    Washington, D.C.,                    Washington, D.C.;

    Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,                Hon. Mitch McConnell,
    Minority Leader,                     Minority Leader,
    U.S. House of Representatives,       U.S. Senate,
    Washington, D.C.,                    Washington, D.C.

    Re: Support for Federal Legislation to Fix Proposition 12 after
                National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

        Dear Speaker McCarthy, Leader Schumer, Leader Jeffries, and Leader
    McConnell,

        We are Attorneys General representing sixteen states writing in
    support of the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (``EATS'') Act.
    Our states are disappointed by the United States Supreme Court's
    decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468 (U.S.
    May 11, 2023). That opinion upheld California's Proposition 12,
    rejecting the challengers' arguments that Prop 12 upsets the balance of
    power between the states in violation of the Constitution. Eleven
    Governors recently sent a letter calling for action. We too think
    Congress should exercise its power and fix this problem. The EATS Act
    prevents states like California from regulating farmers and ranchers
    nationwide, by preserving the right of states and local government to
    regulate agriculture within their jurisdictions.
        Twenty states signed a Supreme Court brief explaining why allowing
    activists in California to dictate to farmers and ranchers how to raise
    hogs will cause problems. But this does not stop at hogs. California
    can throw its weight around to regulate farmers and ranchers around the
    country--and how they raise their crops and livestock. California's
    radical climate change agenda does not account for farmers' basic
    needs.
        Solving the problems Prop 12 creates requires understanding what
    went so wrong. California's unscientific approach to raising pork
    follows from the fact that Californians barely raise any pork
    themselves. A state can always to try to lead by example--passing laws
    to regulate agricultural production within its borders. But that is not
    what California did. Instead, Californians voted to impose their
    radical agenda on out-of-state farmers and ranchers--and in doing so
    raise food costs for Americans across the country. Their approach is an
    attack on states' authority. As a result, many small- and medium-sized
    pork producers may go out of business. All in support of California's
    out-of-touch activist agenda.
        American farmers and ranchers raise massive amounts of animal
    protein as affordably and humanely as possible. American farmers'
    techniques have developed over generations to constitute global best
    practices. No other country produces pork as delicious and high-quality
    as ours. California's radical and unscientific standards show the world
    that they do not get what it takes to raise hogs.
        California's radical-drafted requirements for farmers are hog wild.
    Justice Kavanaugh recognized that California's requirements might even
    worsen animal health and welfare. And because California buys about 13
    percent of the nation's pork, it is prohibitively expensive for farmers
    to separate out California-approved pork from the rest. California's
    burdensome regulations will put small, medium, and possibly even large
    pork producers out of business. And American consumers won't be able to
    afford bacon for breakfast.
        America's pork production is nationwide and relies on coordination
    across the country. One state, or even a few states, should not upend
    that system. And California is learning the wrong lesson--that it can
    dictate, and that the nation must follow. Given the direct impact
    California's Prop 12 has on interstate commerce, Congress should pass
    the EATS Act.
        As Attorneys General, we have expertise in defending our states'
    laws. The EATS Act gives states the tools they need to protect farmers
    and ranchers. By explicitly authorizing courts to issue a preliminary
    injunction while a case is pending, the EATS Act ensures that food
    markets will not be disrupted while a court figures out whether a
    state's new regulation is lawful.
        Our states support letting individuals buy the animal products they
    want and to allow states to lawfully regulate livestock production
    within their own borders. But when a state decides to regulate outside
    its borders, and to try to impose its agenda on other states, that goes
    too far. Regulations like California's Prop 12 will disrupt farmers'
    ability to feed the nation. At a minimum, Prop 12 will force high food
    prices on the American people. Congress should make clear that a state
    can regulate how livestock is produced within its borders but not in
    other states.
        Please join us in supporting the Ending Agricultural Trade
    Suppression Act cosponsored in the Senate (S. 2019) by Senators Chuck
    Grassley (R-IA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Ted Budd (R-
    NC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Deb
    Fischer (R-NE), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Eric Schmitt
    (R-MO), and Thomas Tillis (R-NC); and cosponsored in the House (H.R.
    4417) by Representatives Ashley Hinson (R-IA-02), Mariannette Miller-
    Meeks (R-IA-01), Zachary Nunn (R-IA-03), Randy Feenstra (R-IA-04), and
    24 other Members of the house.
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Brenna Bird
    Attorney General of Iowa

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Tim Griffin                          Daniel Cameron
    Attorney General of Arkansas         Attorney General of Kentucky

    Raul R. Labrador                     Lynn Fitch
    Attorney General of Idaho            Attorney General of Mississippi

    Theodore E. Rokita                   Andrew T. Bailey
    Attorney General of Indiana          Attorney General of Missouri

    Austin Knudsen                       Angela Colmenero
    Attorney General of Montana          Provisional Attorney General of
                                          Texas

    John Formella                        Sean D. Reyes
    Attorney General of New Hampshire    Attorney General of Utah

    Gentner Drummond                     Jason S. Miyares
    Attorney General of Oklahoma         Attorney General of Virginia

    Alan Wilson                          Patrick Morrisey
    Attorney General of South Carolina   Attorney General of West Virginia

    Marty Jackley
    Attorney General of South Dakota

                                    Letter 4
    May 14, 2024

      Hon. Glenn Thompson,
      Chairman,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. David Scott,
      Ranking Minority Member,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
      Chairwoman,
      Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. John Boozman,
      Ranking Minority Member,
      Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
      Washington, D.C.

        To: The Honorable Representative Thompson; Representative Scott;
    Senator Stabenow; Senator Boozman

        We, the Food Equity Alliance \1\ of California, feel a
    responsibility to reinforce to you that Proposition 12 is exacerbating
    food insecurity in California. Proposition 12 disproportionately
    impacts our most vulnerable Californians, grocery markets, and
    restaurants at a time when they are already struggling to make ends
    meet. It is creating chaos and confusion throughout our food supply
    chain and producers, processors, grocers, restaurants, and families
    need help.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://foodequityalliance.org/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In February, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's testimony
    before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee
    emphasized Proposition 12's impacts on pork producers and processors,
    and its disruption to our markets. While we are pleased to see
    thoughtful consideration of Prop 12, there was little to no discussion
    of the impact of Prop 12's impact on food-insecure households.
        Our nation is facing a crisis of food insecurity, which means
    limited, uncertain, or inconsistent access to the food necessary for a
    healthy life. As of October 2023,\2\ over three million households in
    California were considered food-insecure, including over one million
    households with children. Food insecurity can lead to hunger, poor
    physical and mental health, or poor academic performance. Even worse,
    it puts families in the impossible position of choosing whether to pay
    their rent or purchase necessary food and medicine.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.cafoodbanks.org/hunger-data-reports/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Pork prices have become prohibitively expensive for households and
    businesses that rely on affordable protein. A new study \3\ has
    overwhelmingly confirmed the surge in prices and impact on struggling
    Californians. Retail pork prices in California have increased on
    average by 20% since July 1, 2023 compared to the rest of the United
    States. As a result, California's share of the national retail sales
    market for pork has declined, falling from 10% to less than 8% as of
    January 31, 2024, hurting producers and consumers alike.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2024/03/19/
    v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Proposition 12 disproportionately impacts minority families and
    businesses, particularly the Asian and Latino communities who rely on
    pork as their primary protein staple. Culturally, both Latino and Asian
    populations eat more pork compared to the average American who consumes
    higher quantities of beef. This is particularly concerning since more
    than one in three Latinx adults across California live in food-insecure
    households.
        We kindly request that Congress keep in mind Proposition 12's
    startling impact on American families and businesses as they pursue
    relevant legislation. We fear that without Congressional action, these
    same food affordability issues are coming for the rest of the country.
                Sincerely,

    The Food Equity Alliance

        California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
        California Grocers Association
        California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
        California Pork Producers Association
        California Restaurant Association
        California Retailers Association
        Golden Gate Restaurant Association
        Latin Business Association
        Latino Restaurant Association
        National Asian American Coalition

    CC:

    House Committee on Agriculture Members
    Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Members
                                    Letter 5
    July 21, 2025

      Hon. Glenn Thompson,
      Chairman,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Thompson,

        Thank you for your July 18, 2025, letter regarding the United
    States Department of Agriculture's (USDA, ``the Department'') research
    on the economic impacts of California's Proposition 12 (``Prop 12'') on
    both California pork consumers and pork producers across the United
    States. I appreciate your attention to this issue and your commitment
    to understanding the policy's far-reaching implications and its impact
    on the resiliency of our food system.
        In response to your request, I have directed USDA's Economic
    Research Service (ERS) and Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) to
    update their previous research on the economic landscape surrounding
    Prop 12 since its implementation on January 1, 2024.
        In the interim, below is a summary of findings, to date.
    Impact on U.S. Pork Producers
        Prop 12 requires all pork sold in California--regardless of where
    it is produced in the United States--to come from breeding pigs housed
    in systems that provide a minimum of 24 square feet per sow and allow
    the animals to turn around freely. This requirement comes amid the fact
    that over 95 percent of the pork consumed in California is shipped to
    the State. Not surprisingly, this requirement has contributed to cost
    increases within the domestic supply chain.

       According to ERS estimates (April 2025), approximately 27
            percent of U.S. pork producers have made or are making
            investments to comply with Prop 12 housing requirements.

       The average capital cost of retrofitting or rebuilding
            facilities to meet Prop 12 standards is estimated at $3,500 to
            $4,500 per sow, depending on region, existing infrastructure,
            and scale of operation.

       Compliance costs disproportionately affect small- and mid-
            sized producers, who face tighter margins and less access to
            capital. As of the first quarter of 2025, 12 percent of small
            pork operations (defined as <500 sows) have exited the market
            or shifted production away from breeding, citing regulatory
            uncertainty and high transition costs.
    Effect on California Pork Consumers
        California represents approximately 13 percent of total U.S. pork
    consumption. Since the enactment of Prop 12:

       Per ERS Retail Meat Price Data (June 2025), retail pork
            prices in California have increased by 18.7 percent year-over-
            year, compared to a 6.3 percent increase nationwide over the
            same period.

       The average price of pork loin in California increased from
            $4.12 per pound in December 2023 to $4.89 per pound in June
            2025, with more significant increases observed in some cuts,
            such as bacon.

       A recent USDA consumer affordability study (May 2025) found
            that low-income households in California reduced pork purchases
            by 22 percent, indicating price increases are affecting food
            access and affordability for economically vulnerable
            populations.
    Interstate Commerce and Market Fragmentation
        Prop 12 has led to partial segmentation in the national pork
    market:

       Packers and processors now routinely segregate compliant and
            non-compliant pork through dedicated supply chains. According
            to industry data, about 35 percent of federally inspected
            slaughterhouses have systems in place to handle Prop 12-
            compliant product.

       ERS modeling suggests that such segmentation may increase
            transaction and distribution costs by $0.07 to $0.11 per pound
            on compliant pork, compounding inflationary pressure.

        The Department continues to assess long-term implications for
    interstate trade, including potential precedent for similar state-level
    laws in other agricultural sectors. Additionally, USDA will continue to
    monitor Prop 12's economic effects and will prepare a report with more
    recent data. Meanwhile, I will ensure the Department provides
    transparent, data-driven insights to inform policymakers and protect
    the integrity of the U.S. agricultural system.
        As I stated when I visited your Committee earlier this year, I am
    committed to working with Congress to find a fix for Prop 12, and the
    economic issues it has created. One state should not have the authority
    to dictate terms to another state, especially when producers know best
    how to care for their animals. It is critical Congress and USDA work
    together to safeguard producers and consumers to ensure Prop 12 and
    similar laws at the whims of a small minority in one state do not
    create economic hardship.
        Thank you again for your leadership and partnership on this
    important issue. Please do not hesitate to request further briefings or
    data requests by having a member of your staff contact the USDA Office
    of Congressional Relations at (202) 720-7095.
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Brooke L. Rollins,
    Secretary,
    U.S. Department of Agriculture.
                                    Letter 6
    July 21, 2025

    Hon. Glenn Thompson,                 Hon. Angie Craig,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
    House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:

        The American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) is a
    professional association of veterinarians specializing in swine health,
    welfare, and production. Over 1,300 AASV members represent all facets
    of the veterinary profession including practice, research, allied
    industry, public health, government, academia, and education. It is the
    mission of the AASV to increase the knowledge of swine veterinarians,
    protect and promote the health and well-being of pigs, advocate
    science-based approaches to veterinary, industry, and public health
    issues, and promote the development and availability of resources that
    enhance the effectiveness of professional activities.
        The AASV supports efforts that recognize the responsibility of
    veterinarians to work with farmers to ensure swine are raised in a
    manner that promotes animal health, animal well-being, and human
    safety. Because no single husbandry style is applicable in all
    situations, on-farm animal management decisions should be based on the
    best available scientific evidence and professional judgement. The
    veterinarians and farmers who work with these animals daily are best
    informed to make those decisions. Regulatory requirements placing
    arbitrary limits on the veterinarian's ability to work with our clients
    to promote the best on-farm husbandry practices may not be in the best
    interest of the animals under our care.
        It is the position of the AASV that, given the variability inherent
    in different housing systems, we support the use of sow housing
    configurations that provide every animal with access to appropriate
    food and water; protect sows and piglets from detrimental effects
    associated with environmental extremes, particularly temperature
    extremes; reduce exposure to hazards that result in disease, pain or
    injury to sows or piglets; allow sows and piglets to express
    appropriate behaviors and minimize expression of inappropriate
    behaviors within the constraints of the housing type; minimize
    aggression and competition between sows; promote good air quality and
    allow proper sanitation; facilitate evaluation and care of individual
    animals while protecting worker safety; and provide alternative housing
    for sows based on evaluation of each sow's individual needs.
        There are advantages and disadvantages to any sow housing that
    should be considered by weighing scientific evidence and veterinary
    professional judgement. The veterinarian's role is to teach and promote
    appropriate stockmanship, which is as important as housing type in
    meeting the needs of the animals. Methods of selection (genotypic and
    phenotypic) should be considered for identifying animals that can
    thrive in various housing environments. Furthermore, we support
    research that investigates the impact of housing on sow welfare.
        California's Proposition 12 prohibits the sale of products based on
    arbitrary animal housing requirements on a host of animals--including
    swine. The ballot initiative does not objectively improve animal
    welfare. In fact, in some cases, it may compromise animal welfare.
        A well-established body of scientific literature assessing
    biological metrics of sow welfare in individual stalls and group pens
    shows that both housing methods can be important tools in managing a
    healthy herd. Categorically banning one of them, as Proposition 12
    does, will likely harm rather than improve animal well-being. There is
    a strong scientific consensus that, in order to maximize animal
    welfare, the choice between individual stalls and group pens must be
    made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances faced by
    each individual herd and farm. When this choice is made according to
    sound husbandry and veterinary principles, animal-welfare outcomes are
    similar between group housing and individual stalls.
        The scientific evidence thus indicates that both individual stalls
    and group pens are valuable management options for sow housing. Which
    of them is best to use, in what proportions, and at what times in a
    sow's reproductive cycle, are questions that depend on the individual
    circumstances of a farm and its herd. Maximizing animal health and
    welfare therefore requires housing arrangements for sows in farm herds
    to be determined on a case-by-case basis, by farmers and veterinarians
    considering all the circumstances of each individual herd and farm.
        Without a solution, veterinarians will be restricted in their
    options to maximize animal welfare based on a herd's specific needs.
        There is no one-size-fits-all housing type that is best for all
    sows in all situations. For all sow housing systems, careful husbandry,
    facility maintenance, and farmworker training are important to
    maximizing sow well-being. The best solution for animal welfare is for
    each team of farmers and veterinarians to have flexibility to determine
    the housing arrangements that are best for their animals in their
    circumstances. Because Proposition 12 would take away that flexibility,
    it places at risk the well-being of many animals. Moreover, the Supreme
    Court's decision in National Pork Producers v. Ross opened the door for
    additional unscientific state regulations across agriculture and
    veterinary practice.
        The Supreme Court's opinion clearly stated only Congress can
    intervene. It is critical Congress assert its constitutional authority
    to protect the freedom of veterinarians to maximize animal health and
    welfare.
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Harry Snelson, D.V.M.,
    Executive director,
    American Association of Swine Veterinarians.
                                    Letter 7
    July 23, 2025

    Hon. Glenn Thompson,                 Hon. Angie Craig,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
    U.S. House of Representatives,       U.S. House of Representatives,
    Washington, D.C.,                    Washington, D.C.;

    Hon. Austin Scott,                   Hon. Shontel Brown,
    Vice Chair,                          Vice Ranking Minority Member,
    U.S. House of Representatives,       U.S. House of Representatives,
    Washington, D.C.,                    Washington, D.C.;

        Dear Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, Vice Chair Scott, and
    Vice Ranking Member Brown:

        We write to express our support for legislation to address
    California's Proposition 12, clarifying that one state cannot regulate
    livestock production beyond its own borders. Livestock producers in our
    states should not have to comply with regulations determined by another
    state's electorate.
        For decades, our livestock producers have implemented science-based
    practices and adopted production technologies that have allowed our
    nation's food supply to be one of the safest and most sustainable in
    the world. The United States is producing high-quality protein as
    affordably and humanely as possible. However, through Proposition 12,
    California has set arbitrary requirements for how producers should
    operate their farming businesses. Out of touch and removed from the
    realities of agriculture, California activists now claim to know what's
    best for the producers who have raised livestock from generation to
    generation.
        Livestock production in the United States is inherently interstate
    in its design. In the pork industry, nearly 100 percent of the nation's
    sow population is raised outside of California. Although California
    does not raise hogs, the state does account for 15 percent of the
    national pork market. Despite California's lack of hog herd, interstate
    commerce allows its consumers to purchase pork products, meeting the
    state's market demand for this protein. By imposing unnecessary and
    unscientific regulations, Proposition 12 increases the price for
    consumers in California and for producers in pork-supplying states.
        We support the right of individuals to choose which animal products
    they purchase and consume. If consumers in the marketplace create a
    demand for products to be raised in a certain way, producers may be
    incentivized to change their practices to meet this new demand. We also
    support the right of each state to lawfully regulate livestock
    production within their own borders. But when one state decides to
    regulate another, Federal legislation is appropriate and necessary. We
    ask that Congress make clear that each state may regulate livestock
    production within its own borders, but not the production of livestock
    in other states.
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Governor Kim Reynolds    Governor Jim Pillen      Governor Kevin Stitt
    State of Iowa            State of Nebraska        State of Oklahoma

    Governor Tate Reeves     Governor Mike Kehoe      Governor Glenn
                                                       Youngkin
    State of Mississippi     State of Missouri        Commonwealth of
                                                       Virginia

    Governor Mike Braun      Governor Joe Lombardo
    State of Indiana         State of Nevada

                                     ______

     Submitted Letters by Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
                                  from Georgia
                                    Letter 1
    May 20, 2024

    Hon. Glenn Thompson,                 Hon. David Scott,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
    House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott:

        The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is the nation's
    leading representative of the veterinary profession, speaking for more
    than 105,000 member veterinarians who care passionately about
    protecting animal health, animal welfare, and human health. Informed by
    its members' unique scientific training and knowledge, the AVMA offers
    strong support for Section 12007 of the Farm, Food, and National
    Security Act of 2024, which protects veterinarians' freedom and
    flexibility to provide the best care for farm animals.
        Proposition 12 (Prop 12) prohibits sales in California of animal
    products, regardless of whether they are produced in-state or out-of-
    state, that do not comply with certain livestock housing requirements
    set by California voters in a 2018 ballot initiative. Because no one
    husbandry style is appropriate for all circumstances, regulations aimed
    at improving animal welfare should be based upon scientific evidence
    and the professional judgement of veterinarians. The arbitrary housing
    requirements in Prop 12 do not objectively improve animal welfare and
    may unintentionally cause harm.
        In addition, allowing one state to dictate animal raising
    requirements to other states in order to sell their products in its
    state not only interferes with interstate commerce, but carves a path
    for future governance of all states by individual states whose laws
    they may not agree with. This kind of legislation will create a
    patchwork of regulations which are often not scientifically based,
    could impact biosecurity, and would be cost prohibitive and cumbersome
    for veterinarians and their producer clients to navigate.
        The AVMA advocates for policies that advance the practice of
    veterinary medicine, animal welfare, and animal and public health.
    Without a solution to Prop 12, veterinarians will be restricted in
    their options to maximize animal welfare based on a herd's specific
    needs. Through Section 12007, we urge Congress to address the
    challenges posed by Prop 12 in the next farm bill reauthorization.
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Kent D. McClure, D.V.M., J.D.,
    Associate Executive Vice President & Chief Advocacy Officer,
    American Veterinary Medical Association.
                                    Letter 2
    May 21, 2024

    Hon. Glenn Thompson,                 Hon. David Scott,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
    House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott:

        The undersigned organizations representing the country's farmers,
    ranchers, and partners write in strong support of Section 12007 of the
    Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024, which provides much
    needed certainty in farm country. California's Proposition 12--and the
    implications of the Supreme Court's decision in National Pork Producers
    Council v. Ross--are causing turmoil in agricultural markets and having
    significant detrimental impacts on our members' farms and ranches,
    especially small- and medium-sized farms, as explained below. We
    strongly urge Congress to include this critical provision in any farm
    bill reauthorization to prevent an unworkable patchwork of 50
    conflicting state laws throughout the country that snarl interstate
    commerce.
        Proposition 12, a 2018 California ballot measure, prohibits the
    sale of pork, veal, and eggs produced from animals not housed according
    to the state's arbitrary requirements. In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme
    Court ruled that only Congress has the authority to step in and protect
    American agriculture from regulatory chaos posed by laws such as
    Proposition 12.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In his recent testimony before the House Agriculture Committee,
    Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said, ``if we don't take this
    issue [Proposition 12] seriously, we're going to have chaos in the
    marketplace.'' \2\ Further reiterating to the Senate Agriculture
    Committee, Vilsack said, ``if it [Congress] doesn't figure this out,
    there is going to be chaos.'' He emphasized that ``farmers do not need
    the chaos, they need clarity and certainty.'' \3\ Our organizations
    could not agree more.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-agriculture-
    secretary-sees-chaos-meat-market-without-congressional-action-2024-02-
    14/.
        \3\ https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5107918/user-clip-02-28-24-
    boozman-vilsack-prop-12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Without immediate Congressional action, agriculture is at risk of
    arbitrary and conflicting state laws across all 50 states, on any
    myriad of issues. This will most severely harm small- and medium-sized
    farms by imposing massive compliance costs and forcing significant
    consolidation throughout agriculture.
        According to studies conducted by economists at North Carolina
    State University and Iowa State University, constructing new,
    Proposition 12-compliant barns can cost 40% more than traditional barns
    and 25% more than conventional group housing, not including the
    estimated 15% higher operating costs caused by reduced productivity.
    These studies also indicate that compliance with Proposition 12 may be
    more financially attainable for large, cost-advantaged farms who
    benefit from higher profit margins, more favorable lending terms, and
    economies of scale. With states free to impose their own requirements
    on out-of-state producers, high compliance costs and the risk of ever-
    changing regulations will force many small farms to decide between
    exiting the business or entering into a production contract, resulting
    in fewer, larger farms owning a greater portion of sows in the U.S.
        Proposition 12 also poses a significant threat to our relationships
    with long standing trading partners who have negotiated trade
    agreements with the United States. Compliance with Proposition 12
    threatens partners with loss of market access to the most populous
    state in the union. Similarly, it undermines the ability of the United
    States to negotiate trade agreements across the globe, as countries
    could impose similar non-science based regional restrictions on U.S.
    exports. Our organizations are also concerned Proposition 12 puts the
    United States at risk of retaliatory action on American agricultural
    products. This is not a hypothetical theory. The U.S. Government has
    already notified the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade about
    the violation that Proposition 12 creates--to which Canada has already
    raised concerns.4, 5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ directdoc.aspx (wto.org).
        \5\ https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2024/01/
    minister-macaulay-concludes-productive-visit-to-washington-dc.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Some mistakenly believe producers have a choice and can choose not
    to sell into the California market. However, when one state accounts
    for almost 15% of the national market, this is a clear misunderstanding
    of market segmentation and how agricultural markets operate. As
    Secretary Vilsack explained before the Senate Agriculture Committee:
    ``there is not a choice between doing business with California and not
    in California. You're essentially going to be driven by that
    requirement.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5107918/user-clip-02-28-24-
    boozman-vilsack-prop-12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section 12007 protects our nation's robust food supply chains and
    the freedom of farmers across the country to raise food in the best way
    possible. This approach also continues allowing states to act
    independently, imposing laws that impact commerce within their borders
    and regulating practices occurring there. California, and other states,
    could continue to regulate pork production within their borders while
    protecting the rights of other states to make their own determinations.
        As the Supreme Court's decision and Secretary Vilsack made clear:
    only Congress has the authority to prevent ``chaos'' in the marketplace
    and provide farmers the certainty they need. If Congress fails to act,
    the chaos from a segmented market will drive consolidation and force
    American family farmers out of business, as the rest of agriculture
    remains exposed. We ask Congress to address Proposition 12 in the
    upcoming farm bill and urge you to ensure any farm bill reauthorization
    provides certainty to producers and protects their investments from a
    50 state compliance patchwork.
                Sincerely,

                             National Organizations

    Agricultural and Food Transporters   National Lamb Feeders Association
     Conference of American Trucking
     Associations
    American Farm Bureau Federation      National Milk Producers Federation
    American Sheep Industry Association  National Pork Producers Council
    Beef Alliance                        National Sorghum Producers
    Livestock Marketing Association      National Turkey Federation
    National Cattlemen's Beef            Rural & Agricultural Council of
     Association                          America
    National Corn Growers Association    U.S. Cattlemen's Association

                               State Organizations

                  Alabama                          Nebraska (cont.)
    Alabama Cattlemen's Association      Garfield County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Alabama Dairy Producers              Greeley County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Alabama Dept. of Agriculture &       Hall County Farm Bureau (NE)
     Industries
    Alabama Farmers Federation           Hamilton County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Alabama Pork Producers               Holt County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Alabama Poultry Producers            Howard County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Autauga County Farmers Federation    Jefferson County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Baldwin County Farmers Federation    Johnson County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Barbour County Farmers Federation    Kearney/Franklin County Farm Bureau
     (AL)                                 (NE)
    Bibb County Farmers Federation (AL)  Keith County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Blount County Farmers Federation     Lancaster County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Bullock County Farmers Federation    Logan County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Butler County Farmers Federation     Loup County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Calhoun County Farmers Federation    Madison County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Chambers County Farmers Federation   Merrick County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Cherokee County Farmers Federation   Morrill County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Chilton County Farmers Federation    Nance County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Choctaw County Farmers Federation    Nuckolls County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Clarke County Farmers Federation     Otoe County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Clay County Farmers Federation (AL)  Pawnee County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Cleburne County Farmers Federation   Pierce County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Coffee County Farmers Federation     Polk County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Colbert County Farmers Federation    Richardson County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Conecuh County Farmers Federation    Rock County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Coosa County Farmers Federation      Saline County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Covington County Farmers Federation  Saunders County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Crenshaw County Farmers Federation   Scottsbluff County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Cullman County Farmers Federation    Seward County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Dale County Farmers Federation (AL)  Sherman/Valley County Farm Bureau
                                          (NE)
    Dallas County Farmers Federation     Stanton County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Dekalb County Farmers Federation     Thayer County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Elmore County Farmers Federation     Thurston County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Escambia County Farmers Federation   Washington County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Etowah County Farmers Federation     Wayne County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Fayette County Farmers Federation    Wheeler County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Franklin County Farmers Federation   York County Farm Bureau (NE)
     (AL)
    Geneva County Farmers Federation                    Nevada
     (AL)
    Greene County Farmers Federation     Nevada Cattlemen's Association
     (AL)
    Hale County Farmers Federation (AL)  Nevada Farm Bureau Federation
    Henry County Farmers Federation                 New Hampshire
     (AL)
    Houston County Farmers Federation    New Hampshire Farm Bureau
     (AL)                                 Federation
    Jackson County Farmers Federation    Grafton County Farm Bureau (NH)
     (AL)
    Jefferson County Farmers Federation               New Jersey
     (AL)
    Lamar County Farmers Federation      New Jersey Farm Bureau Federation
     (AL)
    Lauderdale County Farmers                         New Mexico
     Federation (AL)
    Lawrence County Farmers Federation   New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau
     (AL)
    Lee County Farmers Federation (AL)   Chaves County Farm and Livestock
                                          Bureau (NM)
    Limestone County Farmers Federation  Dona Ana County Farm and Livestock
     (AL)                                 Bureau (NM)
    Lowndes County Farmers Federation    Grant County Farm and Livestock
     (AL)                                 Bureau (NM)
    Macon County Farmers Federation      Roosevelt County Farm & Livestock
     (AL)                                 Bureau (NM)
    Madison County Farmers Federation    Santa Fe County Farm & Livestock
     (AL)                                 Bureau (NM)
    Marengo County Farmers Federation    Taos County Farm & Livestock Bureau
     (AL)                                 (NM)
    Marion County Farmers Federation     Torrance County Farm & Livestock
     (AL)                                 Bureau (NM)
    Marshall County Farmers Federation   Union County Farm and Livestock
     (AL)                                 Bureau (NM)
    Mobile County Farmers Federation                   New York
     (AL)
    Monroe County Farmers Federation     New York Beef Producers'
     (AL)                                 Association
    Montgomery County Farmers            New York Farm Bureau Federation
     Federation (AL)
    Morgan County Farmers Federation     New York Pork Producers Co-op
     (AL)
    Perry County Farmers Federation      Allegany County Farm Bureau (NY)
     (AL)
    Pickens County Farmers Federation    Cattaraugus County Farm Bureau (NY)
     (AL)
    Pike County Farmers Federation (AL)  Cayuga County Farm Bureau (NY)
    Randolph County Farmers Federation   Chemung County Farm Bureau (NY)
     (AL)
    Russell County Farmers Federation    Ontario County Farm Bureau (NY)
     (AL)
    Shelby County Farm Bureau (AL)       Schuyler Farm Bureau (NY)
    Shelby County Farmers Federation     Seneca County Farm Bureau (NY)
     (AL)
    St. Clair County Farmers Federation  Steuben County Farm Bureau (NY)
     (AL)
    Sumter County Farmers Federation     Yates County Farm Bureau (NY)
     (AL)
    Talladega County Farmers Federation             North Carolina
     (AL)
    Tallapoosa County Farmers            North Carolina Cattlemen's
     Federation (AL)                      Association
    Tuscaloosa County Farmers            North Carolina Department of
     Federation (AL)                      Agriculture & Consumer Services
    Walker County Farmers Federation     North Carolina Farm Bureau
     (AL)                                 Federation
    Washington County Farmers            North Carolina Livestock Auction
     Federation (AL)                      Markets Association
    Wilcox County Farmers Federation     North Carolina Pork Council
     (AL)
    Winston County Farmers Federation                North Dakota
     (AL)
                  Arizona                North Dakota Farm Bureau Federation
    Arizona Cattle Feeders Association   North Dakota Lamb and Wool
                                          Producers Association
    Arizona Farm Bureau Federation       North Dakota Pork Council
    Arizona Pork Council                 North Dakota Stockmen's Association
    Apache County Farm Bureau (AZ)                       Ohio
    Coconino County Farm Bureau (AZ)     Ohio AgriBusiness Association
    Graham County Farm Bureau (AZ)       Ohio Cattlemen's Association
    Greenlee County Farm Bureau (AZ)     Ohio Dairy Producers Association
    Maricopa County Farm Bureau (AZ)     Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
    Navajo County Farm Bureau (AZ)       Ohio Pork Council
    Yuma County Farm Bureau (AZ)         Ohio Sheep Improvement Association
                  Arkansas               AgCredit, ACA (OH)
    Arkansas Farm Bureau                 Ashland County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Arkansas Farm Bureau Poultry         Ashtabula County Farm Bureau (OH)
     Committee
    Arkansas Pork Producers Association  Brown County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Benton County, Farm Bureau (AR)      Butler County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Boone County Farm Bureau (AR)        Carroll County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Carroll County Farm Bureau (AR)      Champaign County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Franklin County Farm Bureau (AR)     Clark County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Madison County Farm Bureau (AR)      Clermont County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Sebastian Farm Bureau (AR)           Clinton County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Washington County Farm Bureau (AR)   Columbiana County (OH)
                 California              Cuyahoga County Farm Bureau (OH)
    California Wool Growers Association  Defiance County Farm Bureau (OH)
    California Pork Producers            Delaware County Farm Bureau (OH)
     Association
                  Colorado               Fayette County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Colorado Cattlemen's Association     Franklin County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Colorado Farm Bureau                 Fulton County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Colorado Livestock Association       Geauga County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Colorado Pork Producers Council      Greene County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Colorado Wool Growers Association    Hamilton County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Otero County Farm Bureau (CO)        Harrison County Farm Bureau (OH)
                Connecticut              Henry County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Connecticut Farm Bureau Association  Jefferson County Farm Bureau (OH)
                  Delaware               Lake County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Delaware Farm Bureau                 Logan County Fam Bureau (OH)
    Delaware Pork Producers Association  Madison County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Sussex County Farm Bureau (DE)       Mahoning County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Kent County Farm Bureau (DE)         Medina County Farm Bureau (OH)
    New Castle County Farm Bureau (DE)   Mercer County Farm Bureau (OH)
                  Florida                Miami County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Farm Credit of Northwest Florida     Montgomery County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Florida Association of Livestock     Paulding County Farm Bureau (OH)
     Markets
    Florida Cattlemen's Association      Portage County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Florida Farm Bureau Federation       Preble County Farm Bureau (OH)
    The Meat Sheep Alliance of Florida   Putnam County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Bay County Farm Bureau (FL)          Shelby County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Bradford County Farm Bureau (FL)     Stark County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Clay County Farm Bureau (FL)         Trumbull County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Columbia County Farm Bureau (FL)     Tuscarawas County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Escambia County Farm Bureau (FL)     Van Wert County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Hamilton County Farm Bureau (FL)     Warren County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Levy County Farm Bureau (FL)         Wayne County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Sumter County Farm Bureau (FL)       Williams County Farm Bureau (OH)
    Washington County Farm Bureau (FL)                 Oklahoma
                  Georgia                Oklahoma Farm Bureau Federation
    Georgia Department of Agriculture    Oklahoma Pork Council
    Georgia Farm Bureau                  Caddo County Farm Bureau Federation
                                          (OK)
    Georgia Livestock Markets            Canadian County Farm Bureau (Ok)
     Association
    Atkinson County Farm Bureau (GA)     McClain County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Barrow County Farm Bureau (GA)       Okfuskee County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Bartow County Farm Bureau (GA)       Oklahoma County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Ben Hill County Farm Bureau (GA)     Okmulgee County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Berrien County Farm Bureau (GA)      Ottawa County Farm Bureau
                                          Federation (OK)
    Bibb County Farm Bureau (GA)         Payne County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Bulloch County Farm Bureau (GA)      Pottawatomie County Farm Bureau
                                          (OK)
    Butts County Farm Bureau (GA)        Pushmataha County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Camden County Farm Bureau (GA)       Roger Mills County Farm Bureau
                                          Federation (OK)
    Carroll County Farm Bureau (GA)      Rogers County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Catoosa County Farm Bureau (GA)      Seminole County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Chattooga County Farm Bureau (GA)    Texas County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Cherokee County Farm Bureau (GA)     Tulsa County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Clarke County Farm Bureau (GA)       Washington County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Cobb County Farm Bureau (GA)         Woodward County Farm Bureau (OK)
    Coffee County Farm Bureau (GA)                      Oregon
    Columbia County Farm Bureau (GA)     Oregon Cattlemen's Association
    Cook County Farm Bureau (GA)         Oregon Farm Bureau Federation
    Crawford County Farm Bureau (GA)     Oregon Pork Producers Association
    Decatur County Farm Bureau (GA)      Clatsop Farm Bureau (OR)
    Dooly County Farm Bureau (GA)        Coos-Curry County Farm Bureau (OR)
    Dougherty County Farm Bureau (GA)    Crook-Wheeler County Farm Bureau
                                          (OR)
    Douglas County Farm Bureau (GA)      Deschutes County Farm Bureau (OR)
    Echols County Farm Bureau (GA)       Harney County Farm Bureau (OR)
    Elbert County Farm Bureau (GA)       Hood River County Farm Bureau
                                          Federation (OR)
    Emanuel County Farm Bureau (GA)      Jackson County Farm Bureau (OR)
    Evans County Farm Bureau (GA)        Klamath Lake County Farm Bureau
                                          (OR)
    Floyd County Farm Bureau (GA)        Linn County Farm Bureau (OR)
    Forsyth County Farm Bureau (GA)      Umatilla/Morrow County Farm Bureau
                                          (OR)
    Gilmer County Farm Bureau (GA)       Wasco County Farm Bureau (OR)
    Glascock County Farm Bureau (GA)     Yamhill County Farm Bureau (OR)
    Gordon County Farm Bureau (GA)                   Pennsylvania
    Gwinnett County Farm Bureau (GA)     Pennsylvania Farm Bureau Federation
    Habersham County Farm Bureau (GA)    Pennsylvania Livestock Auction
                                          Association
    Hall County Farm Bureau (GA)         Adams County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Hancock County Farm Bureau (GA)      Armstrong County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Harris County Farm Bureau (GA)       Beaver/Lawrence County Farm Bureau
                                          (PA)
    Hart County Farm Bureau (GA)         Bedford County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Henry County Farm Bureau (GA)        Berks County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Irwin County Farm Bureau (GA)        Blair County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Jasper County Farm Bureau (GA)       Bradford Sullivan County Farm
                                          Bureau (PA)
    Jeff Davis County Farm Bureau (GA)   Butler County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Jefferson County Farm Bureau (GA)    Cambria County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Jenkins County Farm Bureau (GA)      Centre County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Lanier County Farm Bureau (GA)       Clarion Venango Forest County Farm
                                          Bureau (PA)
    Lincoln County Farm Bureau (GA)      Clearfield County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Long County Farm Bureau (GA)         Clinton County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Lowndes County Farm Bureau (GA)      Columbia County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Lumpkin County Farm Bureau (GA)      Crawford County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Macon County Farm Bureau (GA)        Cumberland County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Madison County Farm Bureau (GA)      Dauphin County Farm Bureau (PA)
    McDuffie County Farm Bureau (GA)     Elk County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Meriwether County Farm Bureau (GA)   Erie County Farm Bureau Federation
                                          (PA)
    Morgan County Farm Bureau (GA)       Fayette County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Murray County Farm Bureau (GA)       Franklin County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Newton County Farm Bureau (GA)       Fulton County Farm Bureau (PA)
    North Fulton County Farm Bureau      Greene County Farm Bureau (PA)
     (GA)
    Oconee County Farm Bureau (GA)       Huntingdon County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Oglethorpe County Farm Bureau (GA)   Indiana County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Peach County Farm Bureau (GA)        Juniata County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Pickens County Farm Bureau (GA)      Lancaster County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Pierce County Farm Bureau (GA)       Lehigh County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Polk County Farm Bureau (GA)         Luzerne County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Putnam County Farm Bureau (GA)       Lycoming County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Rabun County Farm Bureau (GA)        Mckean/Potter/Cameron County Farm
                                          Bureau (PA)
    Screven County Farm Bureau (GA)      Mercer County Farm Bureau (PA)
    South Fulton County Farm Bureau      Mifflin County Farm Bureau (PA)
     (GA)
    Spalding County Farm Bureau (GA)     Montour County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Thomas County Farm Bureau (GA)       Northampton/Monroe County Farm
                                          Bureau (PA)
    Toombs County Farm Bureau (GA)       Northumberland County Farm Bureau
                                          (PA)
    Union County Farm Bureau (GA)        Schuylkill/Carbon County Farm
                                          Bureau (PA)
    Walker County Farm Bureau (GA)       Snyder County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Walton county Farm Bureau (GA)       Somerset County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Warren County Farm Bureau (GA)       Susquehanna County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Wayne County Farm Bureau (GA)        Tioga/Potter County Farm Bureau
                                          (PA)
    Wilkes County Farm Bureau (GA)       Union County Farm Bureau (PA)
                   Hawaii                Warren County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Hawaii Sheep and Goat Association    Washington County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Hawaii Pork Industry Association     Wayne/Pike County Farm Bureau (PA)
                   Idaho                 Westmoreland County Farm Bureau
                                          (PA)
    Idaho Farm Bureau Federation         Wyoming Lackawanna County Farm
                                          Bureau (PA)
    Idaho Wool Growers Association       York County Farm Bureau (PA)
    Bear Lake County Farm Bureau (ID)               South Carolina
    Benewah County Farm Bureau (ID)      South Carolina Farm Bureau
    Bingham County Farm Bureau (ID)      South Carolina Livestock Auction
                                          Markets Association
    Bonner County Farm Bureau (ID)                   South Dakota
    Caribou County Farm Bureau           South Dakota Cattlemen's
     Federation (ID)                      Association
    Clearwater/Lewis County Farm Bureau  South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation
     (ID)
    Custer County Farm Bureau (ID)       South Dakota Pork Producers Council
    Elmore County Farm Bureau (ID)       South Dakota Sheep Growers
    Franklin County Farm Bureau (ID)                  Tennessee
    Fremont County Farm Bureau (ID)      Tennessee Cattlemen's Association
    Gem County Farm Bureau (ID)          Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation
    Idaho County Farm Bureau (ID)        Tennessee Pork Producers
                                          Association
    Jefferson County Farm Bureau (ID)    Tennessee Sheep Producers
                                          Association
    Jerome County Farm Bureau (ID)       Knox County Farm Bureau (TN)
    Lemhi County Farm Bureau (ID)                       Texas
    Madison County Farm Bureau (ID)      Texas Cattle Feeders Association
    Minidoka County Farm Bureau (ID)     Texas Farm Bureau Federation
    Nez Perce County Farm Bureau (ID)    Texas Pork Producers Association
    Oneida County Farm Bureau (ID)       Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers'
                                          Association
    Payette County Farm Bureau (ID)      Anderson County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Power County Farm Bureau (ID)        Angelina County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Teton County Farm Bureau (ID)        Archer County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Valley/Adams Farm Bureau (ID)        Atascosa County Farm Bureau (TX)
                  Illinois               Austin County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Illinois Beef Association            Bailey County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Illinois Corn Growers Association    Bandera County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Illinois Farm Bureau Federation      Baylor County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Illinois Pork Producers Association  Bexar County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Illinois Soybean Growers             Bowie County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Farm Credit Illinois                 Brazoria-Galvestion County Farm
                                          Bureau (TX)
    Calhoun County Farm Bureau (IL)      Brown County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Carroll County Farm Bureau (IL)      Callahan Shackelford County Farm
                                          Bureau (TX)
    Cass-Morgan Farm Bureau (IL)         Cameron County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Champaign County Farm Bureau (IL)    Cherokee County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Christian County Farm Bureau (IL)    Childress County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Coles County Farm Bureau Federation  Clay County Farm Bureau (TX)
     (IL)
    Cook County Farm Bureau (IL)         Cochran County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Crawford County Farm Bureau (IL)     Coke-Sterling County Farm Bureau
                                          (TX)
    DeKalb County Farm Bureau (IL)       Coleman County Farm Bureau (TX)
    DeWitt County Farm Bureau (IL)       Collin County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Douglas County Farm Bureau (IL)      Comanche County Farm Bureau (TX)
    DuPage County Farm Bureau (IL)       Cooke County Farm Burrau (TX)
    Edwards County Farm Bureau (IL)      Coryell County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Effingham County Farm Bureau (IL)    Crosby County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Franklin County Farm Bureau (IL)     Dawson County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Gallatin County Farm Bureau (IL)     Deaf Smith/Oldham Farm Bureau (TX)
    Hamilton County Farm Bureau (IL)     Denton County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Hancock County Farm Bureau (IL)      El Paso County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Henry County Farm Bureau (IL)        Erath County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Jackson County Farm Bureau (IL)      Falls County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Jefferson County Farm Bureau (IL)    Fayette County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Johnson County Farm Bureau (IL)      Fisher County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kane County Farm Bureau (IL)         Foard County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kankakee County Farm Bureau (IL)     Fort Bend County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Knox County Farm Bureau (IL)         Frio County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Lake County Farm Bureau (IL)         Gaines County Farm Bureau (TX)
    LaSalle County Farm Bureau (IL)      Gray/Robert's Farm Bureau (TX)
    Lee County Farm Bureau (IL)          Grayson County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Macon County Farm Bureau (IL)        Guadalupe County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Macoupin County Farm Bureau (IL)     Hale County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Madison County Farm Bureau (IL)      Hamilton County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Marshall-Putnam Farm Bureau (IL)     Hansford County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Mason County Farm Bureau (IL)        Hardin County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Massac County Farm Bureau (IL)       Harris County Farm Bureau (TX)
    McDonough County Farm Bureau (IL)    Hemphill County Farm Bureau (TX)
    McLean County Farm Bureau (IL)       Henderson County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Menard County Farm Bureau            Hill County Farm Bureau (TX)
     Federation (IL)
    Mercer County Farm Bureau            Hockley County Farm Bureau (TX)
     Federation (IL)
    Moultrie County Farm Bureau (IL)     Hopkins Rains County Farm Bureau
                                          (TX)
    Ogle County Farm Bureau (IL)         Howard County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Peoria County Farm Bureau (IL)       Hunt County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Perry County Farm Bureau Federation  Jack County Farm Bureau (TX)
     (IL)
    Piatt County Farm Bureau (IL)        Jackson County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Pike-Scott Farm Bureau (IL)          Jasper County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Pulaski-Alexander Farm Bureau (IL)   Jim Wells County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Richland County Farm Bureau (IL)     Johnson County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Rock Island County Farm Bureau (IL)  Karnes County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Saline County Farm Bureau (IL)       Kaufman County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Sangamon County Farm Bureau (IL)     Kerr County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Schuyler County Farm Bureau (IL)     Kimble County Farm Bureau (TX)
    St. Clair County Farm Bureau (IL)    Kinney-Val Verde County Farm Bureau
                                          (TX)
    Stark County Farm Bureau (IL)        Lamb County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Stephenson County Farm Bureau (IL)   Lampasas County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Tazewell County Farm Bureau (IL)     LaSalle County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Union County Farm Bureau (IL)        Leon County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Vermilion County Farm Bureau (IL)    Liberty County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Wabash County Farm Bureau (IL)       Limestone County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Warren-Henderson County Farm Bureau  Lipscomb County Farm Bureau (TX)
     (IL)
    Washington County Farm Bureau (IL)   Live Oak County Farm Bureau (TX)
    White County Farm Bureau Federation  Lubbock County Farm Bureau (TX)
     (IL)
    Will County Farm Bureau (IL)         Lynn/Garza County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Williamson County Farm Bureau (IL)   Martin County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Winnebago-Boone Farm Bureau (IL)     Mason County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Woodford County Farm Bureau (IL)     Matagorda County Farm Bureau (TX)
                  Indiana                Maverick County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Agri-Business Council                McCulloch County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Indiana Beef Cattle Association      McLennan County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Indiana Corn Growers Association     Medina County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Indiana Dairy Producers              Midland County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc.            Mills County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Indiana Pork Producers Association   Mitchell County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Indiana Sheep Association            Montague County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Indiana Soybean Alliance             Montgomery County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Fayette County Farm Bureau (IN)      Nacogdoches County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Franklin County Farm Bureau (IN)     Navarro County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Grant County Farm Bureau (IN)        Nueces County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Howard County Farm Bureau (IN)       Palo Pinto County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Jefferson County Farm Bureau (IN)    Parker County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Johnson County Farm Bureau (IN)      Parmer County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kosciusko County Farm Bureau (IN)    Pecos Reeves County Farm Bureau
                                          (TX)
    Perry County Farm Bureau (IN)        Polk County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Warren County Farm Bureau (IN)       Refugio County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Warrick County Farm Bureau (IN)      Robertson County Farm Bureau (TX)
                    Iowa                 Rockwall County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Iowa Secretary of Agriculture        Rusk County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Iowa Cattlemen's Association         San Jacinto County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Iowa Corn Growers Association        Wilbarger County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Iowa Farm Bureau Federation          San Patricio County Farm Bureau
                                          (TX)
    Iowa Pork Producers Association      Scurry-Stonewall-Kent County Farm
                                          Bureau (TX)
                   Kansas                Shelby County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kansas Farm Bureau Federation        Starr County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kansas Livestock Association         Stephen's County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kansas Pork Association              Terry County Farm Bureau (TX)
                  Kentucky               Titus County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kentucky Cattlemen's Association     Tom Green County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation      Travis County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kentucky Pork Producers Association  Van Zandt County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kentucky Poultry Federation          Victoria County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Kentucky Sheep and Wool Producers    Walker County Farm Bureau (TX)
     Association, Inc.
    Kentucky Soybean Association         Waller County Farm Bureau (TX)
                 Louisiana               Washington County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Louisiana Department of Agriculture  Webb County Farm Bureau (TX)
     and Forestry
    Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation     Wheeler County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Calcasieu Parish Farm Bureau (LA)    Wichita County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Cameron Parish Farm Bureau (LA)      Willacy county Farm Bureau (TX)
    East St. James Farm Bureau (LA)      Wise County Farm Bureau (TX)
    St. Helena Parish Farm Bureau (LA)   Young County Farm Bureau (TX)
    Vermilion Parish Farm Bureau         Zavala County Farm Bureau (TX)
     Federation (LA)
                  Maryland                               Utah
    Maryland Farm Bureau Federation      Utah Farm Bureau Federation
    Maryland Pork Producers Association  Beaver County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Maryland Sheep Breeders Association  Utah Pork Producers Association
    Anne Arundel County Farm Bureau      Cache County Farm Bureau (UT)
     (MD)
    Baltimore County Farm Bureau (MD)    Davis County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Carroll County Farm Bureau (MD)      Duchesne Farm Bureau (UT)
    Cecil County Farm Bureau (MD)        Emery County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Harford County Farm Bureau (MD)      Iron County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Howard County Farm Bureau (MD)       Morgan County Farm Bureau (UT)
                  Michigan               North Box Elder County Tremonton
                                          (UT)
    Michigan Cattlemen's Association     Piute County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Michigan Corn Growers Association    Salt Lake County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Michigan Farm Bureau Federation      Sanpete County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Michigan Pork Producers Association  South Box County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Michigan Soybean Association         Summit County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Allegan County Farm Bureau (MI)      Tooele County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Bay County Farm Bureau (MI)          Uintah County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Berrien County Farm Bureau (MI)      Weber County Farm Bureau (UT)
    Calhoun County Farm Bureau (MI)                    Virginia
    Cass County Farm Bureau (MI)         Virginia Farm Bureau
    Cheboygan County Farm Bureau (MI)    Virginia Livestock Markets
                                          Association
    Clinton County Farm Bureau (MI)      Virginia Pork Council
    Genesee County Farm Bureau (MI)      Albemarle County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Gratiot County Farm Bureau (MI)      Amherst County Farm Bureau (VA)
    GreenStone Farm Credit Services      Appomattox County Farm Bureau (VA)
     (MI)
    Hiawathaland Farm Bureau (MI)        Augusta County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Hillsdale County Farm Bureau (MI)    Bedford County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Ingham County Farm Bureau (MI)       Bland County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Ionia County Farm Bureau (MI)        Botetourt County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Iron County Farm Bureau (MI)         Brunswick County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Jackson County Farm Bureau (MI)      Buckingham County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Kalamazoo County Farm Bureau (MI)    Campbell County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Kent County Farm Bureau (MI)         Caroline County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Lenawee County Farm Bureau (MI)      Carroll County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Livingston County Farm Bureau (MI)   Charles City-James City-New Kent-
                                          York County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Mecosta County Farm Bureau (MI)      Charlotte County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Montcalm County Farm Bureau (MI)     Chesapeake Farm Bureau (VA)
    Newaygo County Farm Bureau (MI)      Chesterfield County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Oceana County Farm Bureau (MI)       Clarke County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Osceola County Farm Bureau (MI)      Craig County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Ottawa County Farm Bureau (MI)       Culpeper County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Shiawassee County Farm Bureau (MI)   Dinwiddie County Farm Bureau (VA)
    St. Clair County Farm Bureau (MI)    Essex County Farm Bureau (VA)
    St. Joseph County Farm Bureau (MI)   Fauquier County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Van Buren County Farm Bureau (MI)    Floyd County Farm Bureau (VA)
                 Minnesota               Fluvanna County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Minnesota Agri-Growth Council        Franklin County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation     Frederick County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Minnesota Lamb & Wool Producers      Giles County Farm Bureau (VA)
     Association
    Minnesota Milk Producers             Gloucester-Mathews Farm Bureau (VA)
     Association
    Minnesota Pork Producers             Grayson County Farm Bureau (VA)
     Association
    Minnesota State Cattlemen's          Greene County Farm Bureau (VA)
     Association
    Minnesota Turkey Growers             Greensville County Farm Bureau (VA)
     Association
    Arrowhead Regional Farm Bureau (MN)  Halifax County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Beltrami County Farm Bureau (MN)     Hanover County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Blue Earth County Farm Bureau (MN)   Henry County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Brown County Farm Bureau (MN)        Highland-Bath County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Carver County Farm Bureau (MN)       Isle of Wight County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Cass County Farm Bureau (MN)         King & Queen County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Chisago County Farm Bureau (MN)      King George County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Clay County Farm Bureau (MN)         King William County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Cottonwood County Farm Bureau (MN)   Lee County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Dakota County Farm Bureau (MN)       Louisa County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Dodge County Farm Bureau (MN)        Lunenburg County Farm Bureau (VA)
    East Polk County Farm Bureau (MN)    Madison County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Faribault County Farm Bureau (MN)    Mecklenburg County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Fillmore County Farm Bureau (MN)     Middlesex County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Freeborn County Farm Bureau (MN)     Montgomery County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Goodhue County Farm Bureau (MN)      Nansemond County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Headwaters Regional Farm Bureau      Nelson County Farm Bureau (VA)
     (MN)
    Hennepin County Farm Bureau (MN)     Northampton County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Houston County Farm Bureau (MN)      Nothumberland-Lancaster County Farm
                                          Bureau (VA)
    Huron County Farm Bureau (MN)        Nottoway County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Jackson County Farm Bureau           Page County Farm Bureau (VA)
     Federation (MN)
    Lyon County Farm Bureau (MN)         Patrick County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Martin County Farm Bureau (MN)       Pittsylvania County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    McLeod County Farm Bureau (MN)       Powhatan County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Mower County Farm Bureau (MN)        Prince Edward County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Nicollet County Farm Bureau (MN)     Prince George County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Olmsted County Farm Bureau (MN)      Prince William-Fairfax Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Scott County Farm Bureau (MN)        Pulaski County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Sibley County Farm Bureau (MN)       Rappahannock County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Stearns County Farm Bureau (MN)      Richmond County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Steele County Farm Bureau (MN)       Roanoke County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Swift County Farm Bureau (MN)        Rockbridge County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Todd County Farm Bureau (MN)         Rockingham County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Wabasha County Farm Bureau (MN)      Russell County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Washington-Ramsey County Farm        Scott County Farm Bureau (VA)
     Bureau (MN)
    Winona County Farm Bureau (MN)       Shenandoah County Farm Bureau (VA)
                Mississippi              Smyth County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Mississippi Cattlemen's Association  Southampton County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Mississippi Department of            Stafford County Farm Bureau (VA)
     Agriculture and Commerce
    Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation   Surry County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Mississippi Pork Producers           Sussex County Farm Bureau (VA)
     Association
                  Missouri               Tazewell County Farm Bureau (VA)
    South Central Cattlemen's            Virginia Beach Farm Bureau (VA)
     Association (MO)
    Missouri Farm Bureau Federation      Warren County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Missouri Pork Association            Washington County Farm Bureau (VA)
    Missouri Sheep Producers             Wise-Dickenson County Farm Bureau
                                          (VA)
    Missouri Department of Agriculture   Wythe County Farm Bureau (VA)
                  Montana                             Washington
    Montana Farm Bureau Federation       Washington Cattle Feeders
                                          Association
    Montana Pork Producers Council                  West Virginia
    Montana Stockgrowers Association     West Virginia Livestock Marketing
                                          Association
                  Nebraska                            Wisconsin
    Nebraska Cattlemen                   Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation
    Nebraska Corn Growers Association    Wisconsin Pork Association
    Nebraska Department of Agriculture   Dairy Business Association
    Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation      Clark County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Nebraska Pork Producers Association  Door County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Nebraska Sheep and Goat Producers    Dunn County Farm Bureau (WI)
     Association
    Nebraska Soybean Association         Langlade County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Nebraska State Dairy Association     Lincoln County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Boone County Farm Bureau (NE)        Marathon County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Box Butte County Farm Bureau (NE)    Marinette County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Boyd County Farm Bureau (NE)         Marquette County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Brown County Farm Bureau (NE)        Monroe County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Buffalo County Farm Bureau (NE)      Outagamie County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Burt County Farm Bureau (NE)         Price County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Butler County Farm Bureau (NE)       Racine County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Cedar County Farm Bureau (NE)        Shawano County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Cherry County Farm Bureau (NE)       Taylor County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Clay County Farm Bureau (NE)         Waukesha County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Colfax County Farm Bureau (NE)       Waupaca County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Cuming County Farm Bureau (NE)       Waushara County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Custer County Farm Bureau (NE)       Wood County Farm Bureau (WI)
    Dawes County Farm Bureau (NE)                      Wyoming
    Dixon County Farm Bureau (NE)        Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation
    Douglas County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Fillmore County Farm Bureau (NE)
    Frontier County Farm Bureau (NE)

                            Additional Organizations

    APC Proteins (IA)                    Georgia Energy Propane
    ASI Women                            Hillcrest Farms Inc in Dearing (GA)
    Automated Production                 Huvepharma, Inc. (MO)
    Big D Ranch                          JYGA Tech USA (KS)
    Colonial Farm Credit, ACA (MD/VA)    Landwehr Land & Cattle
    Compeer Financial                    MetaFarms (MN)
    Cool Spring Cattle (GA)              Phillips Farms
    Crow Land & Cattle                   Professional Swine Management (IL)
    Pork LLC (IA)                        Standard Nutrition Company (NE)
    Dairy (PA)                           Steven and Meg Williams Farm, LLC
    Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative (WI)   Weisinger Farms (IA)
    Elanco Animal Health                 Wiechman Pig Company, Inc. (NE)
    Farm Credit Mid-America

    CC: Members of the House Agriculture Committee
                                    Letter 3
    July 18, 2025

    Hon. Glenn Thompson,                 Hon. Angie Craig,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
    House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:

        I write on behalf of Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) to
    support efforts to address the negative impact of California's
    Proposition 12 on production agriculture. As you are aware, LMA
    represents more than 80 percent of the regularly selling local
    livestock auction markets across the United States, as well as other
    livestock marketing businesses. Each of our member markets sell
    livestock for hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of livestock
    producers.
        In recent years, we have become concerned with a trend of producers
    stepping away from livestock production without new producers coming
    behind them. Agriculture is not optional. America's food chain is only
    as strong as our family farms and ranches. Freedom to operate and
    certainty of requirements are fundamental to the future viability of
    livestock producers.
        This needed certainty is jeopardized by California's Proposition
    12, a 2018 California ballot measure that prohibits the sale of pork,
    veal, and eggs produced from animals not housed according to the
    state's requirements, regardless of in which state the livestock were
    raised.
        Livestock producers worry about the precedent this could set for
    the future. Additional states creating their own specifications would
    lead to a patchwork of requirements that would be impossible to
    navigate. Additionally, there are significant costs associated with
    complying with new requirements, which would be disproportionally
    challenging on smaller producers.
        We appreciate the leadership of the House Agriculture Committee in
    including Section 12007--Ensuring the Free Movement of Livestock
    Derived Products in Interstate Commerce--in the Farm, Food, and
    National Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467), passed out of Committee in
    May 2024. Unfortunately, this legislation did not advance out of the
    House of Representatives during the 118th Congress.
        We urge Congress to include a similar provision in any farm bill
    reauthorization to prevent an unworkable patchwork of 50 conflicting
    state laws. Thank you again for your commitment to American agriculture
    and ensuring producers have the certainty needed to succeed.
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mike VanMaanen,
    LMA President.
                                     ______

    Submitted by Statement Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
       from Georgia; on Behalf of American Veterinary Medical Association
        On behalf of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA),
    which represents over 108,000 veterinarians across the United States,
    we thank you for the opportunity to provide our views regarding
    California's Proposition 12 (Prop 12).
        In a 2018 ballot initiative, California voters passed Prop 12,
    which prohibits sales of animal products in their state that do not
    comply with specific livestock housing requirements, whether those
    products are produced in California or elsewhere. The requirements in
    Prop 12 are not scientifically based, have not been objectively
    demonstrated to reliably and consistently improve animal welfare, and
    may unintentionally cause harm. Any regulations aimed at improving the
    welfare of animals should be based upon scientific evidence and the
    professional judgement of veterinarians.
        In addition, allowing one state to dictate husbandry requirements
    to other states not only interferes with interstate commerce, but opens
    the door for future governance of all states by an individual state.
    The resulting convoluted patchwork of regulations would be cumbersome
    and cost prohibitive for veterinarians and their clients to navigate.
    Ensuring good animal health and welfare requires a veterinarian to have
    the freedom and authority to recommend the best course of action for
    each unique situation.
        Veterinarians have scientific training and expertise that allows
    them to provide the best possible care for animals living in a range of
    housing types. AVMA is opposed to Prop 12, which restricts
    veterinarians' flexibility to provide the best care possible based on
    animals' specific needs. We urge Congress to address the numerous
    challenges presented by Prop 12 and protect veterinarians' ability to
    maximize animal health and welfare.
                                     ______

     Submitted by Letter Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in Congress
               from Iowa; on Behalf of Blake Edler, E 2 Farm LLC
        Dear Mr. Brandt,

        Thank you for the opportunity to share how Proposition 12 is
    impacting my operation. I greatly appreciate Congressman Feenstra's
    continued leadership on this issue.
        I am not Prop 12 compliant, but I am currently operating under open
    pen gestation (OPG)--a housing method that is essentially a scaled-down
    version of Prop 12. While OPG was introduced with welfare intentions,
    in practice, it has resulted in serious animal health and management
    challenges. Expanding to full Prop 12 compliance would only exacerbate
    these problems and threaten the survival of family farms like mine.
        Here are the key impacts we're facing:

      1.  Decreased Animal Welfare:

            Group gestation housing--whether OPG or Prop 12--increases
                aggression, stress, and death loss. When sows are forced to
                establish a pecking order, we see more injuries, more
                abortions, and more long-term stress. This isn't animal
                welfare--it's a government--mandated fight club. The system
                works against animal health, not for it.

      2.  No Ability to Provide Individualized Care:

            In group systems, it's nearly impossible to isolate sows that
                need medical treatment or special diets, or even to monitor
                them closely. The design removes our ability to provide
                individualized care, and any producer who's been in a pen
                of aggressive sows knows how dangerous it can be--for both
                animals and people.

      3.  Infrastructure Costs Are Devastating:

            Transitioning from OPG to Prop 12-compliant facilities would
                require millions in capital investment--costs that are
                simply unaffordable. Family farms cannot survive under
                these mandates, and many of us will be forced to close or
                sell to large integrators. This is not about welfare--it's
                about wiping out small producers.

      4.  Increased Labor in a Shrinking Workforce:

            Group housing systems require more labor, especially when
                you're constantly managing injuries, sow dynamics, and
                welfare breakdowns. But rural labor is already scarce. Prop
                12 expects us to do more with fewer hands, and it's not
                realistic or sustainable.

      5.  No Market Incentive-Only Losses:

            Even if we could meet Prop 12 standards, there's no real market
                premium. Retailers don't pay enough to offset the increased
                cost of infrastructure, labor, and death loss. In fact,
                compliance would increase financial losses, not reduce
                them. There's no viable economic path forward under these
                regulations.

        I urge the Committee to understand that policies like Prop 12 do
    not reflect science-based animal husbandry. They punish responsible
    farmers, degrade animal care, and accelerate industry consolidation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share this perspective and for
    continuing to fight for common sense in agriculture policy.
                Sincerely,

    Blake Edler,
    E 2 Farm LLC.
                                     ______

    Submitted Letters by Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in Congress
                                   from Iowa
                                    Letter 1
        Representative Feenstra,

        I am writing this in hopes to convince you to continue to push for
    a legislative fix for California Prop 12.
        As you know, I am a farrow to finish producer from your district.
    The century farm in which I am a part owner has already been impacted
    by this over reaching out of state law. We previously were able to sell
    market hogs to a packer in California. Since this legislation had gone
    into effect, we have been locked out of this market. This limiting of
    market opportunities has impacted each of the four families invested in
    our operation.
        Our scale does not allow us make the necessary $2,000 per sow
    investment to meet these requirements. As independent producers the
    regulations are causing us to have serious discussions about the future
    of our swine operation.
        Please continue to work for a legislative fix to this issue.

    Tim Schmidt,
    Hawarden, IA.
                                    Letter 2
        To Whom It May Concern:

        We own and operate a family farm in northwest Iowa, raising wean-
    to-finish pigs. Dean and I are proud to have our two sons farming
    alongside us. Together, they also own shares in a sow unit in Kansas.
        When the time came for a major renovation, they explored what it
    would take to make the sow farm Proposition 12 compliant.
    Unfortunately, the numbers simply didn't work for a farm our size. To
    comply, they would have had to reduce sow numbers by roughly 33% or
    more. That kind of cut would create a domino effect across our entire
    operation--driving up the cost per pig dramatically, increasing labor
    and input expenses, and leaving empty spaces in our nurseries and
    finishing barns.
        At the end of the day, complying with Prop 12 would have made it
    impossible for our family farm to remain sustainable long-term. So, we
    made the difficult decision not to pursue Prop 12 compliance.
        We are both fifth-generation pig farmers, have been raising pigs
    most of our lives and understand what it takes to keep animals healthy
    and well cared for. Evidence-based research shows Prop 12 does not
    improve pig health, and it also puts the caretakers working in these
    barns at a higher risk of injury.
        We care deeply about the people who buy our pork. Our goal has
    always been to produce a nutritious, flavorful, and affordable product
    for families across the country. If farms like ours are forced to
    comply with Prop 12, it will drive food costs higher and make pork less
    affordable for everyone.
        For the sake of family farms and American consumers, we urge
    policymakers: Stop Prop 12. Let us keep pork affordable and accessible
    for all.
                Thank you,

    Dean & Linda Schroeder, Iowa pork farmers.
                                    Letter 3
        Hello,

        My name is Harvey Williams, and I am responding to a request for
    letters from producers about the negative impacts Proposition 12 has
    had on the swine industry. I have worked in the industry on both the
    integrated side and now on the independent producer side. Proposition
    12 can have a negative impact on any size swine operation. Below are a
    few examples of personal experiences where Proposition 12 has affected
    myself or fellow producers in my area.
        There have been several family/independent farrowing operations
    that have had to shut down because of the burdensome cost of becoming
    Prop 12 compliant. These operations have already had to struggle with
    tough markets and health issues in their herd. It was simply not
    realistic to either expand their current building size or decrease the
    number of sows to fit the Prop 12 standards. Producers had to make the
    tough choice of continuing to farrow pigs with no Prop 12 premium,
    close the doors of the farrowing unit, or retrofit their farrowing unit
    into another style of operation.
        With the decreased number of farrowing operations, large integrated
    operations replaced the gap of local wean pigs available in the
    industry. Large farrowing operations in the Midwest, Carolinas, and
    Canada were able to afford the cost of becoming Prop 12 compliant. This
    raised the prices of open market wean pigs which put another strain on
    producers. The worst part is producers that are paying a higher price
    for a Prop 12 compliant wean pig but are not getting a premium at the
    packing plant for this same pig. Larger operations that were able to
    become Prop 12 compliant filled most of the marketing contracts for the
    added premium. Now there is another challenge of raising a Prop 12
    compliant pig for an increased price but not getting any market
    incentive for that pig.
        Overall, Proposition 12 and Question 3 have had and will continue
    to have a negative impact on the industry. Family farms are struggling
    to follow standards created by non-consumers in other states that are
    not science-based. If legislation is not created to prevent a patchwork
    of state interstate-commerce restrictions, then we will not be able to
    stop the snowball effect. This will spiral out of control and make it
    even more difficult for an already struggling industry.
                Sincerely,

    Harvey Williams
                                    Letter 4
    July 16, 2025

      Hon. Randy Feenstra,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Representative, Feenstra,

        I am writing to share the negative impact that California
    Proposition 12 has had on pork producers.
        Pork producers have faced some of the worst economic times in 2023
    and 2024. The economic losses were significant. During that same time
    producers were faced with cost of complying with Proposition 12
    requirements. This has created a significant negative economic impact
    on pork producers.
        Proposition 12 will also drive family farms out of business.
    Because of the compliance cost and the return on investment, this will
    force family farms out of business. The cost to renovate a swine farm
    is about $2,000 per sow. Will drive producers out of business.
        Finally, pork producers are committed to the well-being and care of
    their animals. This proposition does nothing to ensure that animals
    have better well-being.
        We need a legislative fix to this issue.

    Aaron Juergens,
    President,
    Iowa Pork Producers Association.
                                    Letter 5
    July 17, 2025

        I am writing to you today in strong support of addressing in the
    House farm bill the challenges posed by Proposition 12. It is crucial
    for the stability of agricultural producers like me who are committed
    to ensuring access to safe and affordable protein for all. The Trump
    Administration and House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson
    recognize the potential chaos that Proposition 12 may create in the
    marketplace if not addressed. It is imperative for Congress to retain
    the Federal fix to Proposition 12 in the farm bill to provide much-
    needed stability.
        Following the implementation of California Proposition 12, my
    family has experienced firsthand the disruption caused by arbitrary
    state regulations, especially within the U.S. pork industry. At a time
    when food prices are on the rise, such propositions and the possibility
    of similar ones in the future will place unfair burdens on hardworking
    American families and lead to even higher prices. The price of pork in
    California has gone up 20-40% since Prop 12 full implementation January
    1, 2024.
        Our family farm is not Proposition 12 compliant and the price to
    convert is millions of dollars. We are still recovering financially
    from 18 months of the worst economic times in the pig industry. Pig
    farmers take top-notch care of their animals every day and Prop 12 does
    not improve the care of animals. It is just a step towards a meat-free
    society that does not want animal agriculture--this is the ultimate
    goal of the groups that funded the California Prop 12 ballot
    initiative. This patchwork will lead to other drastic measures in the
    future. It is interesting to note that California Farm Bureau reports
    that it takes $100 million to defeat or win a state-wide ballot measure
    in California--that makes it nearly impossible for small groups with
    little funding to have a voice and make a difference in the process.
        Last year, I visited California on a Farm Bureau trip and while at
    a Raley's grocery store, we talked to a butcher. He said that consumers
    are asking why has pork gotten more expensive--they didn't even
    remember what Prop 12 is. I compared a 16 oz package of Hormel Black
    label bacon and the cost was $10.99 in California. In my home town in
    Iowa it was $4.99, less than half the cost. That price difference is
    staggering and will weigh heavily on lower to middle income families
    just trying to serve a meal.
        I urge Congress to support a national solution to prevent a
    patchwork of restrictions on our farms from other states. Maintaining a
    Federal fix to Proposition 12 in the farm bill offers the clarity and
    certainty that our agricultural community needs to continue supporting
    our nation's food supply. Locally, my work ensures that all Americans
    have access to an affordable and nutritious protein source. I urge you
    to vote to keep the Proposition 12 fix in the farm bill to help me
    safeguard my life's work and protect this industry. Food security is
    national security.

    Trish Cook,
    Pig farmer from Iowa.
                                     ______

    Submitted Analysis by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
                                   California
    Pork Prices Lag Behind Chicken, Beef and Average Food Prices (2018-
            2025)
        Proposition 12 was approved by California voters in November 2018,
    with initial space requirements for egg-laying hens, veal calves, and
    breeding pigs taking effect on January 1, 2020. Full enforcement of
    sales restrictions--banning the sale of non-compliant pork, eggs, and
    veal in California--began on January 1, 2022. However, due to a pending
    lawsuit that the Supreme Court eventually ruled Prop 12 as
    Constitutional, enforcement of pork provisions was delayed until July
    1, 2023.
        Based on our review of the existing literature, we have only
    located one recent empirical study analyzing the impacts of Proposition
    12 on pork prices. In this study, three USDA-affiliated economists \1\
    have analyzed the Circana retail scanner data to study any early
    impacts of Proposition 12 on retail pork prices in CA and the Rest of
    the U.S. There was no evidence of price impacts on covered pork
    products outside of California.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Hawkins, H., Arita, S., & Meyer, S. (2024). Proposition 12 pork
    retail price impacts on California consumers. Berkeley (CA): Giannini
    Found Agric Econ, Univ. Calif. https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/
    2024/03/19/v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf.
        \2\ This was also predicted by the analysis of UC Davis Professors
    Richard Sexton and Daniel Sumner: https://www.supremecourt.gov/
    DocketPDF/21/21-468/228373/20220617170252460_
    21-468AgriculturalAndResourceEconomicProfessors.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Oklahoma State University professor of economics, Dr. Bailey
    Norwood stated, ``From the economic analyses I've reviewed, there is no
    indication that Prop 12 has contributed to elevated pork prices at the
    national level. Moreover, I don't see any logical reason why Prop 12
    would influence pork prices outside of California.''
        To test the very same hypothesis using publicly available data, our
    team has collected item-level price data from the Bureau of Labor
    Statistics (BLS). We find that, from 2018 to 2025, BLS's prices of pork
    product categories that are fully covered by Prop 12 (bacon, boneless
    and bone-in pork chops) have grown significantly less than overall food
    prices (CPI), beef and chicken prices as shown below in Figure 1.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Data sources: https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/
    averageretailfoodandenergy
    prices_usandmidwest_table.htmhttps://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-
    importance/, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 1: Time Series of Pork Prices with Other Food Prices (6-Month
            Moving Average, 2018 = 100)

        Comparing average prices between 2018 and the first half of 2023
    with the period after (considering the pre- and post-enforcement
    periods), Prop 12 covered retail pork products show only modest price
    increases through mid-2025, namely 8% to 11% range (see Table 1 below).
    In contrast, given high-inflation environment, especially for food
    products, beef prices climbed 26%, and chicken rose 24% over the same
    period.\4\ During the same time period, the average CPI-Food index rose
    19%. Other pork product categories that are partially covered by Prop
    12 (inclusive of ground or cooked pork products) showed higher price
    increases, but still overall fell short of beef and chicken prices,
    with the exception of the ``All ham'' category.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Beef prices are a combination of ground beef, beef roasts,
    steaks, and other uncooked beef products, weighted using relative
    importance in the CPI basket. On the other hand, pork prices in the
    chart are driven from bacon, and the simple average of boneless and
    bone-in pork chop prices. Those three are the only categories that are
    fully covered by Prop 12, and available in the BLS data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the other hand, based on USDA's meat disappearance data, there
    has been no significant changes in the overall per capita pork
    consumption throughout this time period either.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-
    detail?chartId=112856.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In sum, the data suggests that retail prices for pork have
    generally lagged behind price increases for other proteins and food
    prices as a whole.

    Table 1: Comparison of Pork Prices with Other Food Prices (Pre- and Post-
                                   July 2023)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Jan. 2018-June     July 2023-May      % Change in
           Item               2023              2025             Prices
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Food (Index)              276.88            330.33            19.31%
              Beef               $6.15             $7.73            25.64%
           Chicken               $1.61             $1.99            24.22%
             Bacon               $6.16             $6.82            10.75%
    Pork chops bone-in           $4.15             $4.50             8.53%
        Pork chops               $4.14             $4.60            11.17%
           boneless
    All pork chops *             $3.73             $4.31            15.35%
        Pork ham *               $4.68             $5.62            20.24%
         All ham *               $3.56             $4.53            27.06%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note (*): Includes products not covered by Prop 12.

              Authors' Note: Intelligent Analytics and Modeling has been
            hired by The Responsible Meat Coalition \6\ to analyze the
            effects of California's Proposition 12 on nationwide pork
            prices. This white paper contains our preliminary and draft
            findings on the subject, based on our initial analysis of
            publicly available resources, and our findings are subject to
            change upon further analysis of data and information.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Our team has started its work on July 11th, 2025.
        \7\ Please note that a comprehensive analysis would need to include
    a supply chain analysis, retail pricing strategies (such as loss leader
    for staple product groups), product mix, geographic distribution of
    supply and demand factors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

       Submitted Letters by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in
                          Congress from Massachusetts
                                    undated
        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        At ABC Beef, short for About Being Conscious Beef, we raised cattle
    along the banks of the James River in Nelson County, Virginia, using
    regenerative agriculture practices. Our cattle were raised and finished
    entirely on pasture, grazing a diverse array of grasses and forbs.
    While we are not certified organic, our farming and animal care methods
    mirror organic principles: no confinement, no synthetic inputs, and a
    deep respect for the land, the animals, and the people we feed.
        We write today in strong support of California's Proposition 12 and
    the values it upholds. Although it doesn't directly regulate beef, its
    preservation is essential to protecting the direction of food and
    farming in this country. Prop 12 affirms that consumers have a right to
    know, and influence, how their food is produced. It protects ethical,
    transparent farming and gives producers like us a fair chance in a
    marketplace too often dominated by the lowest-cost, least-conscious
    methods.
        We are deeply concerned about efforts to overturn Prop 12,
    especially through legislation like the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act (S. 1326). Stripping states of the ability to set higher
    standards for food sold within their borders does not protect
    agriculture, it protects consolidation. It undermines the growing
    number of farmers and ranchers who are working to restore soil health,
    humanely raise animals, and connect directly with informed consumers.
        People want beef raised consciously, without cruelty or chemicals,
    and with care for the land and the people who work on the farms. When
    consumers choose food produced in ways that restore our healthy water
    cycles and climate, our choices help actively rebuild our ecology and
    economy. Prop 12 supports that vision, and its reversal would be a step
    backward for all of us.
                Sincerely,

    ABC Beef.

        To the Committee,

        At Rosy Hill Organics, we are a regenerative organic farm located
    in York, South Carolina. We raise chickens for both eggs and meat, as
    well as hogs for pork. Our standards are above reproach, giving respect
    to our animals, our land and our community--keeping everyone healthy
    and nurtured is our top priority. Our work is grounded in soil health,
    animal welfare, and community accountability.
        I'm writing to express support for Proposition 12 and its
    preservation (and opposition to the EATS Act or other attempts to
    dismantle it). As a producer, I see this not as an obstacle, but as an
    opportunity--to differentiate, to lead, and to meet a growing demand
    for humane products. Importantly, the law gave everyone time. Prop 12
    was approved by voters in 2018.
        Let's be clear: rolling it back now undermines the producers who
    played by the rules and invested in a better way forward.
                Thank you,

    Rachel Abplanalp,
    Rosy Hill Organics,
    York, SC.

        Dear Committee Members:

        At Rehoboth Family Farms in Iowa, our happy hens have always had
    the space and freedom to express natural behaviors. Treating animals
    well is a core part of how we farm, and it's also good business.
        We support Proposition 12 because it sets reasonable, humane
    standards that responsible farmers can and already do meet. Compliance
    hasn't been difficult for farms like ours, it simply reflects how we've
    raised animals for years.
        What's more, Prop 12 has opened doors. It has created market
    opportunities for producers who invest in higher-welfare systems and
    want to reach consumers who care about how their food is produced.
    That's good for farms, good for animals, and good for the future of
    agriculture.
        We urge you to defend Proposition 12 and reject any effort to
    overturn it through the farm bill or legislation like the EATS Act. Let
    the farmers doing it right thrive.
                Sincerely,

    Violet Ahrenholtz.

        Dear Congressman McGovern, Congresswoman Craig and Members of the
    House Agriculture Committee,

        I'm writing concerning a dangerous attempt to undo laws like
    California's Proposition 12. I proudly served my country as a U.S.
    Marine for 8 years at Camp Lejeune. My wife served in the U.S. Army for
    4 years in Germany. As a proud veteran who dedicated years of my life
    in service to our country, my commitment to serving my nation continues
    in a new form. Alongside my wife, I now serve our country as a small
    family farmer. Transitioning from my military service to the
    agricultural sector, we have embraced the role of cultivating and
    nurturing the land, providing sustenance to our community, and
    contributing to the economic well-being of our nation.
        Like the EATS Act before it, the Food Security and Farm Protection
    Act presents a severe risk to the state laws that help American farming
    families like mine. It's a Federal overreach that would hurt New York's
    rural communities. What's more alarming is its potential to throw open
    our agricultural gates to foreign corporations, granting them the power
    to operate virtually unregulated. If this Act were to pass, it would
    undermine hard working American farmers.
        Our farm is fully Prop 12 compliant, our sows have space to turn
    around, root, and live naturally without crates. We made that choice
    because it's better for the animals, and frankly, it's what our
    customers want. Prop 12 helps ensure that farms like mine, that invest
    in humane, responsible practices, aren't undercut by cheaper, confined
    systems. I ask that you please prioritize American family farms over
    foreign corporations, and strongly oppose any attempts to jeopardize
    Proposition 12.
                Sincerely,

    Nathan and Marline Allanach,
    ALL Family Farm,
    Naturally Raised Berkshire Pigs,
    Middletown, NY.

        My name is Dick Allen, and I run Dick Allen's Honeybees in Palmer,
    Alaska, where I produce honey, beeswax, and bee pollen using practices
    that support both healthy pollinators and healthy ecosystems. As a
    beekeeper, I know firsthand how much consumers value transparency and
    integrity in their food system.
        That's why I oppose the EATS Act.
        This bill would take away the rights of states like California to
    set basic standards for how animals are treated--standards supported by
    voters and consumers who care about where their food comes from and how
    it's produced.
        Beekeepers may not raise pigs or chickens, but we understand what
    it means to work in partnership with nature, and we depend on a food
    system that values responsibility over exploitation. Proposition 12
    rewards farmers and ranchers who prioritize animal welfare and public
    trust. The EATS Act undermines both.
        Please stand with small-scale producers and the people we serve.
    Protect state rights. Uphold Proposition 12. Oppose the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Dick Allen,
    Dick Allen's Honeybees, Alaska.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        I am the sole proprietor of Busy Ewe Farm & Fibers. I have
    ``Specialty Raised'' Registered ATSA Teeswater Rams & Ewes, and am a
    very small farm committed to ethical land stewardship, humane livestock
    care, and transparency in how my animals are raised and take pride in
    producing wholesome sustainable food and fiber. I urge you to oppose
    the so-called Food Security and Farm Protection Act, formerly known as
    the EATS Act, and any similar efforts that would repeal or invalidate
    state-level laws like California's Proposition 12. We need to maintain
    our states' rights!
        Let's be clear: this bill is not about protecting farms. It's about
    stripping states and communities of their right to set baseline
    standards for food safety, animal housing, environmental protection,
    and land use. It is imperative that states have he right to regulate to
    the situations for their area and their producers. We cannot have a one
    size fits all regulation. Thoughtful, phased-in reforms are possible
    and welcomed by consumers and many producers alike when voted by the
    residents of that area. Prop 12 was passed by CA voters, upheld by the
    Supreme Court, and gave producers more than 5 years to adapt.
        As a small farm, I have worked hard to build trust with my
    customers, trust built on knowing where their food and fibers come
    from, and how our animals live. This bill would undercut that trust. It
    would force states to accept products from systems that disregard
    animal welfare, often rely on intensive confinement, and externalize
    environmental harm onto local communities.
        The majority of Federal laws have multiplied and created additional
    regulations that have eliminated the small farmer as we don't have the
    financial resources to implement all of the said regulations that will
    benefit the small farmers but in reality, undermine and harm our
    livelihoods.
        The current requirement for USDA labeling of meat and the increased
    regulations that have shut down many of our butcher shops have
    increased our costs over 85% for processing our animals to offer to
    customers in neighboring states. How has this benefited the small
    farmers?
        We urge you to defend the rights of states, support the
    constitutional intent of states' rights, the rights of small farmers,
    the integrity of responsible agriculture, and the freedom of consumers
    to support farms that reflect their values.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
                Sincerely,

    Brenda Anderson,
    Busy Ewe Farm and Fibers.

      Subject: Support for Proposition 12/Opposition to the EATS Act and
                Save Our Bacon Act

        Dear Chair Thompson and Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We are writing on behalf of Date Creek Ranch, a long-standing
    environmentally focused, family-operated ranch in Arizona. Since 1985,
    our ranch has proudly provided grass-fed beef, lamb, pastured chickens,
    and natural pork to families across the region. Today, we continue our
    legacy of producing meats that are as nutritious and humane as they are
    sustainable.
        We raise pigs, and we understand the challenges and
    responsibilities that come with doing it right: raising animals with
    space, dignity, and respect for natural behaviors. So, we were happy to
    see California pass Proposition 12.
        Prop 12 created a clear, values-based market for farmers who
    prioritize animal welfare and responsible farming. It gave us access to
    more customers who care deeply about how their food is raised and who
    are willing to support farms that align with those principles. In a
    time when small- and mid-sized farms are often squeezed out, Prop 12
    has created market opportunities.
        The EATS Act and the newly introduced Save Our Bacon Act would
    erase that progress. They would take away the ability of states to
    respond to their residents' concerns, destroy opportunities for
    responsible producers, and hand even more power to industrial meat
    corporations that cut costs by cutting corners.
        These bills are not about helping farmers; they are about
    protecting a few multinational players at the expense of every rancher
    and consumer who believes food can and should be better. That's not
    freedom, and it's certainly not fairness.
        At Date Creek Ranch, we believe in raising animals in a way that
    heals the land, nourishes our communities, and upholds integrity from
    soil to supper. We believe consumers should have the right to know how
    their food is produced, and support farms whose values reflect their
    own.
        For the above reasons, we respectfully urge this Committee to
    oppose the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act, and to defend Proposition
    12.
                With respect and thanks,

    Ryan Barteau & Savannah Figueroa,
    On behalf of Date Creek Ranch,
    Wikieup, AZ.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        Barton Farm is a small, family-run cattle operation in northern
    Mississippi. We raise Hereford cattle on pasture. Our cattle are raised
    with space to roam, fresh forage, and without confinement, because it's
    better for the animals, and better for the families we feed.
        We strongly oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S.
    1326), and other attempts to overturn California's Proposition 12.
    Despite its name, this bill does not protect farms like ours. In fact,
    it does just the opposite. By stripping states of the right to set
    standards for the products sold within their borders, it gives even
    more power to massive corporate operations, and pushes small,
    responsible farms like ours further to the margins.
        Proposition 12 creates space in the market for producers who
    already farm the right way. We understand livestock. We know what
    humane care looks like, and we support a food system that respects both
    animals and the people who raise them. Rolling back Prop 12 just to
    benefit industrial confinement operations undermines that goal, and it
    sends the wrong message about who Federal policy is designed to serve.
        Please oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (along with
    other attempts to gut Prop 12) and stand with the farmers who are
    working to do things right.
                Sincerely,

    Barry Barton,
    Barton Farm.

        Dear Members of the Committee:

        My name is Donna Bascom, and I represent Bascom Farm, a
    diversified, family-run operation in New Hampshire. I submit this
    testimony in firm opposition to the so-called Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, a bill that, despite its title, undermines both food
    security and the long-standing rights of states and communities to
    govern the quality and safety of food produced and consumed within
    their borders.
        At its core, this bill is not about farm protection. It's about
    removing control from local consumers, farmers, and land stewards and
    handing it to the largest, most consolidated segments of the
    agricultural industry. It would prohibit states from setting basic
    standards on the types of food products sold within their borders--no
    matter the consequences to local economies, public health, or the
    environment.
        This is not an abstract debate. When we lose the ability to set
    standards at the state or regional level, we open the door to
    industrial practices that have already proven destructive: manure
    lagoons leaching into drinking water, unchecked antibiotic use
    contributing to drug-resistant bacteria, and foodborne illness
    outbreaks.
        Bascom Farm urges this Committee to recognize what's truly at stake
    here: not just the way a product gets to market, but who gets to decide
    how it does. If you support food sovereignty, responsible land
    management, and public health, this bill should alarm you. If you
    believe in states' rights and the principles of federalism, this bill
    is very problematic And if you care about the future of farming in New
    Hampshire and beyond, this bill is a major red flag.
        We respectfully urge you to reject the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act.
        Thank you for your time.

    Donna Siobhan Doel Bascom,
    Bascom Farm.

        Dear Congresswoman Craig,

        Blossom Bluff Orchards in California's Central Valley grows organic
    peaches, nectarines, and citrus using regenerative methods.
        As California farmers, we support Proposition 12 as part of a
    shared agricultural ethic: transparency, care, and quality. It's
    consistent with the way we farm and the kind of food system we believe
    in.
        It also affirms the right of states to listen to their voters and
    take a stand for higher standards. Undermining that right benefits no
    one, except the few who profit from cutting corners.
        We hope you'll protect the voice of California voters and uphold
    Proposition 12.
                Respectfully,

    Blossom Bluff Orchards.

        To the Committee,

        At Blueberry Ridge Farm in Fairmont, West Virginia, we invite our
    community to pick their own organic berries, connecting people to fresh
    food and the land it comes from. Our farm reflects local values and
    personal responsibility.
        We are opposed to the EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act and attempts to weaken California's Proposition 12.
    Regardless of what it's called now, these are attacks on state
    sovereignty. State governments have the right to set standards that
    reflect the will of their voters. Undermining those rights in favor of
    centralized corporate lobbying is a step backward for agriculture and
    democracy alike.
        Please stand up for state-level autonomy and local food systems.
    Reject any attempts to undo Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Blueberry Ridge Farm,
    Fairmont, West Virginia.

        Dear Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern,

        My name is Robert Brubaker, Jr., and I'm a fourth-generation farmer
    from Manheim, Pennsylvania. Today, I farm alongside my two sons, making
    up the fifth generation on our family farm with the hope that a sixth
    generation will one day continue our legacy.
        Like many others, we operate a small family farm. In our case, we
    run a sow breeding and piglet production operation. When California
    voters passed Proposition 12, and the Supreme Court later upheld it,
    our family saw an opportunity. We recognized that if we were willing to
    make the financial and time commitment, we could serve a market that
    was willing to pay a premium for higher animal welfare standards.
        That's exactly what we did. We transitioned our sow facility to
    meet Prop 12 standards. Our sows now live in open pens with room to
    move freely, and I can confidently say: I wouldn't want to go back to
    the old-style barns. Our animals are healthier. Our employees are more
    satisfied. And the sows are visibly more content. Productivity has also
    improved, which is one of the clearest signs that animals are thriving
    in their environment.
        It's important to point out that producing hogs in Pennsylvania is
    already $8-$16 more expensive than in other regions. So, for small
    family farms like ours, having access to a specialized, value-driven
    market like California's has helped create a path to long-term
    sustainability.
        Now, with proposals like the EATS Act gaining momentum, that very
    market and the investment we made into it is at risk. Some producers
    may be urging you to vote against Prop 12, but those producers didn't
    make the investment we made. They still have markets for their pigs. If
    Prop 12 is overturned, it won't affect them, it will hurt farmers like
    us who stepped up, made the change, and are serving these standards. It
    would unravel our business model and threaten the viability of
    continuing our multigenerational operation.
        Let's also be honest about the bigger picture. Over 60 major food
    companies like McDonald's, Costco, Wendy's, and Kroger are already
    moving away from crate-raised pork because they know it's not what
    their customers want. This is where the market is heading, and forward-
    thinking farms like ours are trying to stay ahead of that curve.
        That's why I respectfully ask you to continue supporting
    Proposition 12 and reject proposals like the EATS Act. Please don't
    overturn the voter-approved standards that allow small family farms
    like ours to compete. This is not just about policy, it's about our
    livelihood, our future, and the legacy we've worked so hard to build.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Robert ``Bob'' Brubaker, Jr.

        Dear Committee Members,

        My name is Anthony Byars, and I run 3191 Farm in Alabama. We've
    been raising pigs here, proudly without the use of gestation crates
    (the cages that confine sows while they're pregnant).
        California's Prop 12 gives farmers who prioritize animal welfare a
    way to stand out and reach a broader market. When voters ask for better
    treatment of animals, and the courts uphold that decision, Congress
    should not step in and unravel it.
        Proposals like the EATS Act would throw all of this progress into
    chaos. Let states make laws that reflect the values of their people.
    Let farmers continue to meet those expectations--and benefit from them.
                Sincerely,

    Anthony Byars,
    3191 Farm,
    Alabama.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        As a proud farmer from Arizona, I can tell you that farming today
    is about more than growing food, it's about meeting expectations,
    earning trust, and doing right by the people we feed. Consumers
    increasingly want to know that their food is produced ethically, with
    care for animals, the environment, and public health. That's not a
    passing trend, it's the future of farming.
        Proposition 12 is a thoughtful response to that shift. It gives
    farmers a framework to align with growing consumer demand for humane,
    transparent practices. It also gives consumers confidence that the
    system reflects their values. This law is not about imposing burdens.
    Rather, it sets a new standard that responsible farmers can meet and be
    proud of.
        That's why I'm deeply concerned about legislation like the EATS Act
    and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act. These proposals would
    erase years of progress and tell consumers and farmers alike that their
    efforts don't matter. Farmers who have made real investments to raise
    animals humanely and sustainably would be punished, and the public's
    trust in agriculture would be eroded.
        We should be encouraging forward-thinking practices, not
    undermining them. I urge you to stand with those of us working toward a
    more ethical, sustainable food system. Please protect Proposition 12
    and reject any attempt to roll it back.
        Thank you for your time and for listening to the voices of working
    farmers.
                Sincerely,

    April Christie

        To the Committee,

        At Churchill Orchard in Ojai, California, we grow fruit with a
    focus on land stewardship, quality, and transparency. Our customers
    care deeply about how their food is grown and so do we.
        We oppose the EATS Act and any version of it that overrides the
    will of voters and strips states of the right to set basic food
    standards. California's Proposition 12 is one example of a state-led
    effort to bring integrity and accountability to our food system.
    Responsible producers shouldn't be penalized for doing things the right
    way. Instead, this legislation rewards industrial consolidation while
    silencing local voices.
        Please protect the right of states to uphold integrity in
    agriculture. Oppose the EATS Act and uphold Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Churchill Orchard,
    Ojai, California.

        Dear Rep. John Mannion,

        I am aware that the House Agriculture Committee is holding a
    hearing on Prop 12 on Wednesday 7/23. As a farmer who raises cattle,
    pork and chickens in your district, I am writing to express my hope
    that you will attend that hearing, oppose efforts to repeal Prop 12,
    and share that your constituents, like me, oppose the EATS Act and any
    attempts to overturn state laws. Local communities know what is best
    for them and should be able to pass laws protecting animal welfare,
    farmers and consumers.
        Though its supporters claim to be protecting independent farmers
    like me, the EATS Act or any similar attempt to roll back state laws
    like California's Prop 12 would undermine farmers by removing important
    market opportunities for those of us who have already invested in more
    humane animal housing systems to meet the growing demand for higher-
    welfare products.
        At Otter Creek Farm, we raise grass-fed beef cattle, pasture-raised
    pigs, chickens, and laying hens in systems that prioritize animal
    welfare, land health, and transparency. These practices-certified by
    trusted third parties--come with higher costs, but they also yield
    better outcomes for the animals, the environment, and our community.
        If Prop 12 is overturned, it would signal a step backward for farm
    animal welfare nationwide. The law not only ensures minimum space
    requirements for animals like sows and hens, but also restricts the
    sale of meat and eggs from systems that don't meet these standards.
    Without it:

              Factory-farmed products raised under inhumane, confined
            conditions would flood the market--including in states like
            California that have historically led the demand for higher-
            welfare food.
              The price advantage for confinement-based systems would
            widen, making it harder for farms like ours--who invest in
            quality, not shortcuts--to compete fairly.
              Consumer trust and momentum toward better farming practices
            would erode, undercutting years of education, advocacy, and
            relationship-building with values-driven customers.
              Small-scale, high-welfare producers like us risk being priced
            out of mainstream markets, despite offering superior nutrition,
            transparency, and stewardship.

        Prop 12 isn't just about pigs in crates--it's about protecting the
    future of ethical, sustainable farming. For Otter Creek Farm and others
    like us, overturning it would threaten both our principles and our
    bottom line.
        Eliminating laws like Prop 12 would further entrench the industrial
    confinement system that puts farmers like me at a disadvantage in the
    marketplace every day. I fully support local control and the ability
    for states to take action against the consolidation of the agriculture
    industry in support of a more humane and healthy food system.
                Thank you for your consideration,

    Elizabeth Collins and Bradley Wiley,
    Johnsonville, NY.

    Otter Creek Farm (https://ottercreek.eatfromfarms.com/)

    Graceful Acres Farmstay (https://ottercreek.eatfromfarms.com/page/
    graceful-acres-farmstay)

    OCF Cattle LLC (https://ottercreek.eatfromfarms.com/page/ocf-cattle)

        To Whom It May Concern,

        I'm writing as a farmer who supports Proposition 12 and what it
    represents. It's not radical, it's simply humane. Undoing it through
    the EATS Act or similar legislation sends the message that animal
    welfare can be traded away for convenience.
        Please don't allow that. Let voters' choices stand.
                With respect,

    Beth Conrey,
    Berthoud, CO.

      Hon. Angie Craig,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. James P. McGovern,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C. 20515

      Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.;

        Dear Ranking Member Angie Craig, Representative Jim McGovern, and
    Representative Salud Carbajal:

        I'm Aaron Corbett, CEO of North Country Smokehouse, a family-owned,
    artisanal meat smokehouse based in Claremont, New Hampshire. North
    Country Smokehouse has been crafting smoked bacon, ham, and sausage for
    over a century, staying true to traditional methods and exceptional
    quality. What truly sets us apart is our unwavering commitment to
    ethical sourcing and animal care.
        We are proud to be a subsidiary of duBreton, a North American
    leader in Certified Humane' and organic pork. Our parent
    company has been raising pigs 100% crate-free since 2003, far exceeding
    even the most stringent animal welfare standards. Every hog that goes
    into North Country's smoked meats is raised with ample space,
    comfortable bedding, and the freedom to engage in natural behaviors--no
    gestation crates, no stressful confinement.
        Because of this, North Country Smokehouse was among the very first
    in the industry to achieve formal certification for compliance with
    California's Proposition 12. In fact, when Prop 12's rules came into
    effect years ago, our company was more than ready: we had been gearing
    up for years, scaling our supply of Prop 12-compliant pork through
    duBreton's network of over 400 family farms.
        The enactment of Prop 12 in California (and a similar standard in
    Massachusetts) represented a major opportunity for a company like ours.
    We had new retailers and food-service clients reaching out almost daily
    once the law took effect. We expanded production shifts, hired more
    workers at our smokehouse, and proudly shipped Prop 12-compliant bacon
    to California, just as we've had been doing in Massachusetts.
        The California and Massachusetts laws are good for our business and
    good for our farmers. It validated our long-term investments in
    responsible farming. Instead of being undercut by substandard, inhumane
    pork, we found ourselves rewarded in the marketplace for our higher
    standards. This is how it should be.
        Now, imagine our dismay when we learned of the proposed Ending
    Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act. This Federal legislation
    would obliterate Prop 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3 in one fell
    swoop. From where I sit, overseeing a business that has flourished by
    adhering to these better standards, the EATS Act is nothing less than a
    dire threat to our company's success. If this Act passes, the carefully
    constructed market incentives that have allowed responsive producers
    like us to succeed will vanish overnight. Let me break down the
    consequences for North Country Smokehouse and our network:

       Lost Markets and Customers: Many of the new customers we
            gained--those retailers and distributors who came to us for
            Prop 12-compliant bacon--could very well revert to their old
            suppliers if those suppliers are allowed to sell non-compliant
            (crate-raised) pork again. The EATS Act would force California
            and Massachusetts to accept products that do not meet their
            current standards. That means our competitive advantage in
            those states evaporates. The result: our sales would drop, and
            so would the sales of any other responsibly-focused brand. For
            a smokehouse of our size (we're not a multinational
            corporation--we're a regional, family-run business), losing
            those contracts would hurt us immensely. It might mean scaling
            back production or delaying growth plans that were based on
            expanding demand for higher-welfare products.

       Stranded Investments in Animal Welfare: North Country
            Smokehouse and duBreton have invested enormous resources over
            the years to raise the bar on animal welfare. We've invested in
            third-party humane certifications, organic certifications, and
            auditing processes to assure customers of our claims. All that
            investment made sense when laws like Prop 12 signaled a trend
            toward stricter standards--we were ahead of the curve and
            positioned to lead. But if the EATS Act reverses that tide, we
            and our farmers are left holding the bag. Those investments
            don't disappear, but their financial returns do. It is a
            painful prospect to consider that doing the right thing early
            could become a competitive disadvantage because the law would
            suddenly reward those who did nothing. We'd find ourselves
            having spent millions on world-class animal husbandry, only to
            compete against global corporations that spent zero and now
            face no requirement to ever improve. It's demoralizing for our
            farmers, to say the least. How do I look them in the eye and
            explain that Congress may effectively say ``It doesn't matter
            that you raised the bar, our market just got taken away by
            Congress''? This is the kind of policy whiplash that makes
            farmers distrust government.

       Impact on New England and Local Networks: I want to
            emphasize that Massachusetts' Question 3 is essentially our
            home market standard. We are based in New England; many of our
            local grocery partners in Boston and throughout Massachusetts
            rely on North Country Smokehouse for compliant bacon and hams.
            If the EATS Act strikes down Q3, it will harm New England
            businesses directly. Here in New Hampshire and neighboring
            Vermont, we have a proud tradition of small-scale, humane
            farming. The Massachusetts law has been a boon to our regional
            food system by creating demand for local humane products.
            Eliminating it would hurt New England farmers and food
            producers in favor of distant industrial operators with lower
            standards. It feels like an attack on our local agricultural
            identity, led by interests that have no stake in our
            community's values. Representative McGovern, as a Massachusetts
            lawmaker, I know you understand how hard-won Q3 was and how
            strongly your constituents support it. Representative Carbajal,
            California's Prop 12 is the twin of Q3 and equally cherished by
            your constituents. And Representative Craig, even though
            Minnesota doesn't have an identical law, many Minnesota pig
            farmers have adapted to serve those who do (some of them supply
            companies like ours). This is truly a national issue that
            touches even states without their own confinement bans, because
            it's about allowing markets for higher-welfare products to
            flourish.

        From a business perspective, I also must mention stability and
    planning. We ramped up production to meet Prop 12 demand, including
    securing additional organic hog supply from duBreton's farms and
    ensuring our smokehouse capacity could handle large orders from West
    Coast clients. These are not spigots that can be turned on and off
    without cost. If EATS were to pass and Prop 12 enforcement vanished, we
    could be left with more supply than demand. Oversupply could force
    prices down and squeeze margins for us and our farmers. In the worst
    case, farms might have to scale down herds or even shutter, and we
    might have to reduce our workforce that proudly produces what had been
    a fast-growing product line. It's tragic to contemplate this reversal
    after the hopeful surge we experienced when Prop 12 kicked in. It was
    like a new dawn for responsible agriculture--and EATS threatens to
    plunge us back into darkness.
        The EATS Act would be devastating not just economically, but
    morally. North Country Smokehouse has built its brand on doing things
    the right way for animals, farmers, and quality. To see that ethic
    potentially undermined by a Federal law catering to the lowest common
    denominator is disheartening. I strongly urge you to oppose the EATS
    Act and prevent it from becoming law. The momentum in agriculture
    should be toward better practices and empowering states to be
    ``laboratories of innovation'' for food policy. If some states want to
    go above and beyond to support responsible farming and family farms,
    the Federal Government should not tear that down. Please stand with
    companies like North Country Smokehouse, with our farmer partners, and
    with the consumers who want these choices. Stopping the EATS Act is
    critical to preserving a fair, values-driven market and keeping
    businesses like ours thriving. Thank you for your attention and for
    your continued support of ethical and family-scale agriculture.
                Sincerely

    Aaron Corbett,
    Chief Executive Officer, North Country Smokehouse.

        To the Members of Congress,

        My name is Vincent Costa, and I run Sacred Garden Farm in Phoenix,
    Arizona.
        I'm writing to express my support for Proposition 12 and my strong
    opposition to the EATS Act and its newer version, the Food Security and
    Farm Protection Act. These Federal bills are deeply concerning because
    they would strip states of the right to protect animals, ensure
    transparency, and respond to the values of their own residents.
        Small farms like mine are built on trust, trust in how food is
    grown, how animals are treated, and how the land is cared for. Prop 12
    reflects that trust. It gives ethical farmers a fair shot and honors
    the wishes of millions of voters who want a better food system. The
    EATS Act would do the opposite, it would silence those voices and
    reward those who cut corners.
        Farming isn't one-size-fits-all, and Federal overreach like this
    hurts the people trying to do it right. Please defend Prop 12 and
    reject the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Vincent Costa,
    Sacred Garden Farm,
    Phoenix, AZ.

        Dear Committee Members,

        Along with chickens, I raise pigs in Romulus, Michigan. Out here,
    we raise animals on pasture, with space to move and root around like
    pigs are meant to.
        Michigan made the choice to phase out the use of cruel confinement
    methods for pigs, and we were proud to see it. It gave farms like mine
    a chance to grow our customer base. When Prop 12 passed in California,
    it only amplified that momentum.
        Now we hear that some in Congress want to rip all that away. The
    EATS Act, the farm bill language, whatever you call it, it's a mistake.
    You're not just stepping on state rights; you're undermining farmers
    like me who have adapted, invested, and built trust around doing things
    better.
        Animal welfare matters. And so does honoring the people (voters,
    farmers, families) who are trying to make the food system more humane.
    Keep Prop 12 and laws like it in place. And let us keep doing what we
    do best: raising animals with care.
                Respectfully,

    Detroit Flight Path Farm.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My family's commitment to agriculture runs deep. From my father
    raising Jersey cattle in Clarksburg, West Virginia, to our current
    small, multi-generational Hereford operation at Dunrovin Farm in
    Crozet, Virginia, we've spent decades committed to raising animals with
    care, integrity, and purpose.
        We support Proposition 12 because it reflects the values we've
    built our farm around, ethical treatment of animals, respect for the
    land, and a food system that honors transparency and responsibility.
    Laws like Prop 12 don't hinder good farmers. They allow consumers to
    make informed choices, and they create space in the market for farmers
    who go above and beyond to do things right.
        Efforts like the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, which would
    gut Prop 12, threaten not just animal welfare standards, they threaten
    family farms like ours that have built their reputations on quality,
    trust, and compassion. We're not asking for favors; we're asking for
    fairness. Let voters and states continue to uphold standards that
    prioritize responsible agriculture.
        Please preserve Proposition 12 and reject attempts to undermine it.
                Sincerely,

    Dunrovin Farm,
    Crozet, Virginia

        As a family farmer and as a farm that welcomes eco-tourism in
    southwestern Wisconsin, I urge you to vote against the EATS [A]ct.
    Urban people are hungry to see healthy and thriving small family farms
    that treat domesticated animals and their human care givers with
    dignity. Allowing the barbaric treatment of the very animals that are
    sacrificed for our food is no longer an option for many of us. I urge
    you to vote your conscience and not be swayed by industrialized ag
    which has moved far from the intrinsic relationship between human
    beings and the production of food that should be considered sacred--for
    our health and for that of the entire ecosystem.
                Thank you,

    Adena Eakles,
    Founder, Echo Valley Farm.

        To the Committee,

        At EcoGarden Oasis in Sheridan, Wyoming, we support pollinators by
    offering supplies that help people grow healthy gardens and sustain bee
    populations. Whether it's through home gardening or food production,
    our goal is to support sustainable ecosystems and local resilience.
        That's why we oppose the EATS Act, its rebranded [from] (the Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act), and any attempts to undo Proposition
    12. These efforts strip away the ability of states to respond to local
    values, environmental concerns, and consumer demand. Decisions about
    food policy should be made by the people most affected, not by
    centralized forces or lobbying from multinational agribusiness.
        We urge you to reject this Federal overreach and preserve states'
    rights and the local food systems we all depend on.
                Sincerely,

    EcoGarden Oasis LLC,
    Sheridan, Wyoming.

        To the Committee,

        At Flippin Bees in Columbia, we provide bee removal services and
    are proud advocates for pollinator health. Bees are essential to food
    security, and our work helps protect both ecosystems and agriculture.
        We oppose attempts to weaken California's Proposition 12, like the
    EATS Act (and the identical legislation introduced under a new name)
    because it strips states of the right to regulate agricultural
    practices in ways that reflect local values and environmental needs.
    From pollinators to livestock, farming is never one-size-fits-all. This
    legislation undermines local autonomy in favor of industrial interests.
        Please protect states' rights and support food systems that value
    sustainability and diversity.
                Sincerely,

    Greg Flippin,
    Flippin Bees,
    Columbia, MO.

        To the Committee,

        Franklins Farm Blooms and Heirlooms in Illinois grows heirloom
    vegetables and using no-till and pollinator-friendly practices. We're
    part of a growing movement of farms that prioritize soil health,
    biodiversity, and responsible stewardship.
        I am also a President of a [501(c)(3)] farmers['] market that works
    with tiny producers who want to grow and process small quantities of
    meat animals for sale to their community members. Proposition 12 will
    give them a fair opportunity to profitably raise a small number of
    animals in a humane manner that can then be sold by that local producer
    to their local community. It will allow for a tighter network of
    community food providers.
        We support Proposition 12 because it gives a fair shot to producers
    who invest in quality over quantity. It sets a reasonable, humane
    baseline for animal care that reflects what many small farmers are
    already doing.
        Please preserve Prop 12 and help ensure a future where ethics and
    transparency in food production are protected, not erased.
                With gratitude,

    Franklins Farm Blooms and Heirlooms

        Dear Rep. Foushee,

        As a farmer who raises livestock and poultry in northern Durham
    County, I am writing to express my support for Prop 12 and laws like it
    across the country. Local communities know what is best for them and
    should be able to pass laws protecting animal welfare, farmers and
    consumers in their state.
        On July 23rd, the House Agriculture Committee is holding a hearing
    on the ``implications'' of Proposition 12, which bans the sale of
    caged/crated eggs, pork and veal in California. Under the guise of
    protecting independent farmers like me, some House Members are
    attempting to roll back Prop 12. In reality, overturning Prop 12 would
    undermine independent farmers by removing important market
    opportunities for those of us who have already invested in more humane
    food animal practices to meet the growing demand for higher-welfare
    products.
        We take immense pride in providing humane and healthy meats and
    eggs to eaters in Durham, Orange and Wake Counties and would love to
    see a NC version of Prop 12. While this is unlikely given the current
    political climate, it is important to stand up for a community's right
    to make the decision to hold the ag industry to minimal welfare
    standards. Who knows, NC might want to support the thousands of small,
    humane farmers who sell at one (or multiple) of the almost 300 farmers'
    markets in the state or the hundreds of co-ops or Whole Foods and pass
    our own Prop 12. It would be unfortunate if the precedent is set so
    that other states could ignore our laws or even overthrow them.
        I urge you to fully support local control and the ability for
    states to take action against the consolidation of the ag industry in
    support of a more humane and healthy food system. I urge you to oppose
    any future efforts to overturn Prop 12, whether by the EATS Act or
    otherwise.
                Thank you for all you do for district 4,

    Samantha Gasson,
    Bull City Farm.

      Hon. Angie Craig,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. Salud Carbajal,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. James P. McGovern
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Ranking Member Angie Craig, Representative Salud Carbajal, and
    Representative Jim McGovern:

        My name is Phil Gatto, and I am the Co-Founder and CEO of True
    Story Foods, a family-owned meat company based in California. True
    Story Foods partners with a network of small family farms--from the
    Midwest heartland--to raise pigs humanely, without gestation crates or
    cages. True Story was founded on the belief that the best meat comes
    from respecting traditional methods: animals raised with room to roam,
    cared for by farmers who are stewards of their land. We pride ourselves
    on offering products that consumers can feel good about--a ``true
    story'' behind every bite, where animals are treated well and family
    farmers can make an honest living.
        When California's Proposition 12 was enacted by voters, we at True
    Story Foods welcomed it wholeheartedly. In fact, Prop 12's standards
    (such as giving mother pigs room to at least turn around) mirrored the
    practices we already had in place from day one. But that's not to say
    Prop 12 had no effect on us; on the contrary, it validated our business
    model and spurred major growth opportunities.
        Suddenly, large retailers and distributors in California and
    Massachusetts needed sources of pork that met these new humane
    requirements. True Story Foods was ready and able to meet that demand.
    Over the last couple of years, we've invested significantly--millions
    of dollars--to scale up our Prop 12-compliant supply chain to serve the
    California market. This included supporting our farmers as they built
    additional housing that exceeds the required space per pig, obtaining
    third-party certifications for compliance, and expanding our processing
    capacity to handle more crate-free pork. These were big investments for
    a mid-sized, family-run company like ours, but we made them with
    confidence because Prop 12 opened a pathway for sustainable growth
    aligned with our values.
        Today, True Story Foods supplies Prop 12-compliant pork products to
    grocery chains, restaurants, and meal services around the country.
    We've proven that raising pigs with care is not only the ethical
    choice--it's a viable business when the market rewards it. Our farmers,
    some of whom are in states like Missouri and Iowa, have seen their
    efforts pay off as they ship pork to high-demand markets throughout
    California and Massachusetts. This progress, however, is now under an
    existential threat from the proposed EATS Act. If the EATS Act were to
    become law, it would erase Prop 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3
    overnight, nullifying the very standards that have allowed companies
    like ours to succeed. The consequences for True Story Foods would be
    severe and immediate.
        First, the EATS Act would undermine the huge investments our
    farmers have made. As one example, one of our partner farmers in the
    Midwest recently spent a substantial sum converting their barns to meet
    California's requirements--installing new penning systems, enrichment
    for the pigs, and dedicating more floor space per sow. This farmer did
    so knowing that California is a robust market that cares about animal
    welfare. If the EATS Act passes, that farmer's operation will
    technically no longer need to meet those standards to sell into
    California--but they can't exactly undo those investments.
        Instead, they will be stuck facing international competitors who
    avoided all such investments and can now sell into California because
    Congress gave them a free pass on responsible husbandry. It would be
    nothing short of heartbreaking for me to call that farmer and tell them
    that Washington just crushed their businesses.
        Many of our other farmers are in the same boat: they invested
    millions collectively to become Prop 12-compliant, in partnership with
    us. The EATS Act blatantly threatens the livelihoods of these farmers
    by stripping away the market framework that made their investments
    worthwhile. As a CEO, I worry that some of our suppliers could go out
    of business or exit hog farming altogether if their market evaporates.
        Second, overturning these state laws would harm True Story Foods'
    business directly. Prop 12 and Q3 leveled the playing field--everyone
    selling pork in California and Massachusetts had to meet the same basic
    humane criteria. We could compete fairly on the basis of quality and
    craftsmanship, without being undercut by industrial producers who
    confine animals in cruel, high-density systems. EATS would reverse
    that.
        We would once again be forced to compete against giant
    conglomerates that produce pork at with little regard for animal
    welfare or small-farm viability. These companies have economies of
    scale and vertically integrated systems that dwarf family farmers.
        Prop 12 gave consumers confidence that any bacon or ham they bought
    locally met a decent standard, which opened the door for brands like
    ours that emphasize quality and ethics. If EATS knocks down those
    standards, we fear losing many of our retail placements and food-
    service contracts as the market floods with old-style pork. In blunt
    terms, the EATS Act threatens the future of our business. It would yank
    away the stability and growth we've enjoyed and throw us back into a
    race-to-the-bottom market we specifically set out to transcend.
        Beyond the immediate economic threat, I want to emphasize what a
    backward step the EATS Act represents for our society. True Story Foods
    joined a coalition of crate-free pork farmers and responsible meat
    companies to speak out in Washington, D.C., precisely because we see
    EATS as an attack on fundamental American values. Voters in California
    and Massachusetts made a clear, democratic decision that they want no
    part in products derived from extreme animal confinement. Our company's
    experience has shown that honoring those values is possible--we are
    doing it successfully! For Congress to swoop in now and nullify those
    state laws would send a chilling message. It says to consumers: ``You
    don't get to choose, through your laws, products that align with your
    morals.'' It says to farmers: ``Don't bother innovating or improving
    animal welfare--the Federal Government will come in and destroy your
    farm.'' And it says to companies like mine: ``Your good deeds are not
    only unrecognized, but will be penalized; you should have just stuck
    with the cruel status quo.'' This is why I consider the EATS Act a
    dire, existential threat. It threatens not just our bottom line, but
    the very vision of a more humane, transparent food system that we have
    been working toward.
        Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern, I appeal to you
    today with urgency and sincerity: please do everything in your power to
    stop the EATS Act. As lawmakers from Minnesota, California, and
    Massachusetts, you each understand how important local agricultural
    standards can be--whether it's protecting family farms, consumers, or
    animal welfare. California and Massachusetts have been national leaders
    in raising the bar for how farm animals are treated, and Minnesota is
    home to many independent farmers who have embraced those higher
    standards to serve those markets. Don't let a few powerful agribusiness
    interests derail this progress. On behalf of True Story Foods, our
    employees, our farm partners, and the customers we proudly serve, I
    urge you to oppose the EATS Act in any form. Stand with us as we defend
    the hard-won progress toward ethical farming and an honest food system.
    Thank you for championing what is right and for considering this
    testimony as you deliberate on the farm bill and related matters.
                Sincerely,

    Phil Gatto,
    Co-Founder & CEO, True Story Foods.

        To Whom It May Concern:

        My name is Matt Goettl, and I own and operate Goettl Grove LLC in
    Minnesota. We raise pigs and goats in a humane, pasture-based system
    that emphasizes animal welfare, environmental stewardship, and consumer
    trust. Our pigs roam freely in the woods and forage naturally. This
    woodlot pork model reflects Minnesota values of responsible animal
    care.
        I am writing in strong opposition to the EATS Act. This bill would
    override important state laws that protect animals, family farmers, and
    the integrity of our food systems. It would favor large industrial
    operations over small-scale, ethical farms like mine. I believe
    Minnesotans (and all Americans) have a right to demand higher welfare
    standards and transparency in how food is raised.
        One thing that is often overlooked is the voice of the people.
        California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3 were
    passed by popular vote. These were not policies pushed solely by
    elected officials--they were decisions made directly by the people who
    showed up at the ballot box to vote for stronger animal welfare
    protections.
        The EATS Act disregards that voice. It pushes a corporate agenda
    above the rights of citizens who made a choice and exercised their
    democratic right to vote.
        Please reject the EATS Act and uphold the right of states, and the
    people, to support responsible farming and animal care.
                Sincerely,

    Matt Goettl,
    Goettl Grove LLC,
    Minnesota.

        To the Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We at Green Thumb Farm are purveyors of the highest quality local
    Missouri wildflower honey.
        We have been growing organically/sustainably on our land with
    sensitivity and caring for all living beings since our location here in
    1996.
        We support Proposition 12 because it creates a food system where
    transparency and ethics are expected, not exceptional. The next
    generation is watching, and they want to know: are we going to reward
    good farming or the cheapest possible production?
        Prop 12 answers that with action. It's not just about animals, it's
    about values. Let's keep it.
                Thank you,

    Green Thumb Farm,
    Missouri.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Griffith Family Farm here in West Virginia, we raise our animals
    with patience, care, and respect. Growing a chicken for meat takes
    around 8 weeks, while pork can take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years
    depending on the breed. That time matters. It gives us the chance to do
    things right, to raise animals in clean, open environments, with the
    ability to move, root, peck, and behave like animals were meant to.
        When an animal lives a good life, it shows in the quality of the
    meat and in the pride we take as farmers. We don't rush it. We don't
    cut corners. And we're not alone, many small farms across the country
    are doing the same. Proposition 12 recognizes that kind of stewardship.
    It doesn't demand perfection; it simply expects the basics: room to
    move, standards for care, and a market that values better treatment of
    animals.
        Efforts to gut Proposition 12 through the EATS Act or any other
    vehicle are dangerous. They don't protect farmers, they protect
    consolidation, cut corners, and erase the value of doing things the
    right way. West Virginia, like many other states, has farmers who
    believe that raising animals well is part of raising food well.
    Proposition 12 has helped create space in the marketplace for that
    belief.
        We urge Congress to defend the right of states to set humane
    farming standards and to support the farmers and families working hard
    to meet them.
                Sincerely,

    Griffith Family Farm,
    West Virginia.

        Dear Congressman McGovern:

        The recently proposed Food Security and Farm Protection Act--a
    Federal bill that's identical to the previously introduced EATS Act--
    has us really alarmed as stewards of the land at Blueyah Blueberry
    Farm. While this Federal bill claims to strengthen the food supply, it
    would wipe out states' abilities to set agricultural standards. It
    strips communities of control of food policy. That's a real threat to
    Iowa farmers and our rural communities.
        Iowa has laws in place to guard against both livestock and plant
    diseases, like Iowa Code  177A.5. If the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act passes, those protective measures could be nullified.
    That's not just bad policy, it's dangerous.
        Local conditions and communities' needs vary, which is why food
    policy is best left in the hands of the states. Decisions that affect
    our farms shouldn't be handed over at the expense of proven Iowa
    safeguards.
        For these reasons, we urge Members of Congress to reject the Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act.

    Jenna Hammerich,
    Blueyah Organic U-Pick Blueberry Farm.

      Hon. Angie Craig,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. James P. McGovern,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Representative Craig and Representative McGovern,

        My name is Will Harris and I own a family farm called White Oak
    Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia. We raise cattle, sheep, goats, hogs, and
    poultry . . . we slaughter them . . . and we ship the product to
    consumers in 48 states from our online store. Our farm is nearly 160
    years old, and I am the fourth generation of my family to own it. Two
    of my daughters and their spouses are in management today, and we
    employ 165 employees. We are the largest private employer in our
    county. We sell about $30 million of product per year.
        Before California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts's Question 3,
    securing buyers was much more challenging. As much as we believed in
    our company's values and were committed to staying family-owned, we
    struggled to compete for contracts against large, corporate
    conglomerates. Corporate giants, including foreign-owned ones like
    Smithfield and JBS, were out-bidding us and pushing us out of the
    market. Consolidation in the U.S. pork industry has caused the number
    of hog farms to plummet by 93% over the last 55 years, while hog
    production has increased due to these corporations' concentrated and
    exploitative business models. We are one of the few smaller operations
    that have survived.
        Proposition 12 was one of the best things to happen for our
    company. The law opened the door to market opportunities that were
    previously dominated by the monopolistic meatpackers. We were already
    Prop 12 compliant. We now believe that we will have more business with
    virtually the same management and labor. Last year, we had record gains
    with about a million dollars in total net revenue.
        Unfortunately, some industry groups, such as the National Pork
    Producers Council (NPPC) and the North American Meat Institute (NAMI),
    have vehemently opposed Proposition 12, claiming that the law would
    hurt small farmers. But in reality, Proposition 12 is helping to keep
    small farms like ours alive. Despite their claims, lobbying groups like
    the NPPC represent the interests of large meatpackers, not small
    farmers. Today, just four multinational corporations--Smithfield Foods,
    Tyson Foods, JBS USA, and Cargill--control 67% of the pork processing
    market. Those four companies are who the lobbying groups truly
    represent, not us. Laws like Proposition 12 give us real American
    farmers a fighting chance.
        It has come to my attention that the House Agriculture Committee
    wishes to examine the implications of Proposition 12. Here at White Oak
    Pastures, the implications have been nothing but positive. Because of
    Prop 12, we have more sales, more consistent income, and perhaps most
    importantly, a brighter future for our employees, our family, and our
    farm. Please do everything in your power to protect us by protecting
    this law.
                Sincerely,

    Will Harris,
    White Oak Pastures,
    Bluffton, Georgia.

        To the Members of the House Agriculture Committee:

        My name is Elaine Heath and I manage The Garden at Spring Forest in
    Hillsborough. I urge you to oppose efforts to undermine Proposition 12.
    This law represents not only a fair timeline for producers, but also a
    vital shift toward a food system that reflects consumer values and
    public health concerns.
        Proposition 12 wasn't just about animal space--it's about
    mitigating public health risks tied to overcrowding and intensive
    confinement. Better living conditions for animals lead to better health
    outcomes for consumers.
        We should be encouraging states and producers who lead on these
    fronts, not penalizing them.
                Thank you,

    Elaine Heath,
    The Garden at Spring Forest,
    Hillsborough, NC

        Dear Congressman McGovern,

        We run Union Hill Grassfed Beef on the western slopes of the
    Cascades in Washington State. We raise grass-fed cattle and chickens,
    grazing them rotationally without confinement, antibiotics, or
    hormones.
        Proposition 12 upholds values that mirror our practices:
    transparency, animal welfare, and land stewardship. When voters say,
    ``We want food produced under humane conditions,'' it's not just a
    policy choice--it's democracy at work. Ignoring that sets a dangerous
    precedent and undermines the ethical producers consumers increasingly
    want to support.
        We urge you to defend Prop 12.
                Respectfully,

    Peter Hendrickson,
    Union Hill Grassfed Beef, WA.

        To the Members of Congress,

        At Horneman Family Organic Farm in Regan, North Dakota, we raise
    our animals in wide open spaces where they can move freely, express
    natural behaviors, and live the way animals are meant to live. This
    kind of farming isn't just good for the animals, it's good for our
    land, our families, and the people we feed.
        We oppose the EATS Act because it threatens the rights of states
    and the integrity of farmers like us. Laws like Proposition 12 reflect
    what consumers are asking for: more humane, transparent food systems.
    The EATS Act would undermine it by giving an unfair advantage to
    industrial operations that rely on confinement and cut corners.
        We don't need Federal overreach that protects the lowest standards.
    We need policies that support independent family farms that are doing
    things right.
        Please stand with responsible farmers. Oppose the EATS Act, and
    uphold Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Horneman Family Organic Farm,
    Regan, North Dakota.

        Dear Congressman McGovern,

        We understand Proposition 12 because we raise egg-laying hens. At
    Edgewise Farms, we have a mixed flock that ranges over about 4 acres
    but has access to forty. We collect fresh eggs three times daily.
        Our hens roam freely, scratch in the dirt, and enjoy access to the
    outdoors every day. We're fully compliant with Proposition 12, and
    proud of it, our hens aren't confined to cramped cages, and their
    welfare is a core part of how we farm. Prop 12 has helped create a
    market that values this kind of humane, transparent production. It also
    gives consumers confidence in the food they're buying.
        If laws like Prop 12 are overturned, it makes a mockery of our
    efforts and props up industrial models that cut costs at the animals'
    and farmers' expense.
        Keep Prop 12. It's good law, and good sense.
                Sincerely,

    Nathan Huntley,
    Edgewise Farms,
    Oklahoma.

        To Whom It May Concern:

        I'm Jill Johnson, co-owner of Crane Dance Farm in Middleville,
    Michigan. We raise pigs, cattle, lambs, chickens, and ducks on pasture,
    using regenerative practices that honor both the animals and the land.
    Our animals live naturally, with straw bedding, sunshine, and the
    freedom to move, how farming should be.
        The EATS Act is an alarming threat to everything we stand for. It
    would strip states of their ability to require even the most basic
    animal welfare standards, and it would undermine consumer trust by
    forcing all of us to accept the lowest common denominator.
        Please understand: this bill does not help small farmers. It helps
    industrial meat giants who confine animals in cruel conditions.
    Responsible farmers like us will be forced to compete against producers
    who cut corners at the expense of animals and rural communities.
        I urge you to oppose the EATS Act and defend Michigan's right to
    support ethical agriculture.
                With respect,

    Jill Johnson,
    Crane Dance Farm, Middleville, MI.

        Dear House Agriculture Committee,

        I'm Nancy Kiefat of Alerohof LLC in North Dakota. I'm writing to
    voice my strong opposition to Federal efforts to overturn Proposition
    12, whether through the EATS Act, the so-called Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, or other measures.
        Prop 12 sets a reasonable, humane baseline for animal care. It was
    voted in by the people, upheld by the Supreme Court, and supported by
    many farmers who meet welfare standards. Markets are changing, and
    responsible producers are rising to meet that demand.
        Federal overreach undermines farmers who are already doing the
    right thing and tells voters their values don't count. Let's protect
    Prop 12, not tear it down.
                Sincerely,

    Nancy Kiefat,
    Alerohof LLC,
    North Dakota.

        To the Members of Congress,

        We are the King family, owners of Frog Holler Farm in Brooklyn,
    Michigan. We are a working farm, rooted in soil and community. (We're
    not to be confused with a separate wholesale distributor in Ann Arbor,
    Frog Holler Produce, which serves retail markets.)
        We are writing today in strong support of Proposition 12 and in
    firm opposition to the EATS Act and any Federal legislation that seeks
    to override hard-won state standards like it.
        Proposition 12 reflects the values of a growing number of Americans
    (including Michiganders as our state has passed similar legislation),
    people who believe animals should be raised humanely and that
    transparency in food production matters. These standards support
    ethical farmers, encourage better practices, and give consumers
    confidence in the food they bring home to their families.
        The EATS Act would erase those gains. It would strip states of
    their ability to protect animals, consumers, and local farmers by
    nullifying laws passed through democratic processes. For small farms
    like ours, it would tilt the playing field even further in favor of
    industrial agriculture and take away one of the few tools we have to
    stand out: integrity.
        Farming is about trust. Trust between farmers and the land, and
    between producers and the people we feed. We ask you to protect that
    trust. Please defend Proposition 12 and reject the EATS Act and other
    attempts to dismantle it.
                Sincerely,

    The King Family,
    Frog Holler Farm,
    Brooklyn, Michigan.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        At Uncommon Beef in Montana, our name reflects our mission: to
    raise cattle in ways that respect the land, the animals, and the people
    who rely on us for food. We operate with a deep commitment to animal
    welfare, our cattle live their lives on pasture, with room to roam,
    graze, and express natural behaviors.
        We support Proposition 12 because it upholds the basic principle
    that how animals are treated matters. It ensures that veal, eggs, and
    pork sold into California meet minimum humane standards, standards that
    align with what more and more consumers are demanding and what
    responsible farmers already practice.
        Efforts to overturn Prop 12, like the so-called Food Security and
    Farm Protection Act, would not only erase those humane standards, but
    they would reward the cheapest, most industrialized forms of
    confinement, at the expense of both animals and the farmers who treat
    them well.
        Our farm doesn't cut corners, and we don't believe producers should
    be able to hide poor practices behind weak laws. Prop 12 is a step
    toward a food system that respects animals and gives farmers doing
    right by them a fair chance.
        Please defend Proposition 12 and reject efforts to dismantle it.
                Sincerely,

    Catherine Kirchner,
    Owner--Uncommon Beef.

        Dear House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Belinda Kiser, and I farm in West Virginia. We raise our
    animals outdoors and grow vegetables with care for the earth and our
    community.
        California's Prop 12 says that animals deserve space to move and
    that consumers deserve to know their food comes from humane systems.
    That's responsible, not radical.
        Efforts to overturn Prop 12, like the EATS Act and others, put
    corporate interests above decency and fairness. These laws threaten the
    integrity of farming and the rights of states to uphold public values.
        I ask you to stand with farmers and citizens. Oppose the EATS Act,
    the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
    Uphold Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Belinda Kiser,
    Everything Green, WV.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        As an organic farmer in southeastern Minnesota, I've been raising
    healthy crops and livestock without the use of CAFOs (Concentrated
    Animal Feeding Operations) for nearly 30 years. My pigs are raised in a
    way that fully complies with California's Proposition 12, no gestation
    crates, no extreme confinement, just honest, humane animal care. That's
    the kind of farming that more and more consumers want, and Prop 12
    ensures that those values are reflected in the marketplace.
        Unfortunately, efforts like the EATS Act, now misleadingly renamed
    the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, would strip states like
    California of the right to enforce these standards. That would mean the
    elimination of critical protections not only for animals, but also for
    food safety, disease prevention, and public trust in agriculture. It
    would also give an unfair advantage to industrial-scale CAFOs that
    continue to rely on practices the public finds unacceptable.
        I recently traveled to Washington with other farmers and food
    businesses to urge Congress to reject harmful efforts like the Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act. What we heard across the spectrum is
    that consumers, companies, and fellow farmers, is that people do not
    want to see Prop 12 overturned. They want food produced with care,
    transparency, and accountability.
        I urge you to stand with the farmers who are doing the right thing,
    and with the voters who demanded better. Protect Prop 12, and oppose
    the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (and all other efforts to
    undermine this critically important law).
                Sincerely,

    Eric Klein,
    Hidden Stream Farm/Klein Family Farms
    Elgin, MN

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        At Katharsis Meadows, we are committed to raising food in ways that
    care for animals, the land, and the people we feed. On beautiful hills
    and valleys, we raise pastured Berkshire pigs, free range chickens,
    Muscovy ducks for eggs and meat, and goats for goat milk soap, meat and
    fleece. We see Proposition 12 as a step in the right direction, and one
    that creates opportunities for farmers, like us, who raise their hens,
    pigs and calves with space to move.
        This law reflects consumer expectations and public concern. More
    than that, it reinforces the idea that states have the right to
    establish meaningful standards for food sold within their borders.
        Bills like the EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm Protection
    Act don't protect farms, they strip away accountability and undermine
    responsible farming. We urge you to stand against them.
        Proposition 12 and laws like it deserve protection.
                Thank you,

    Katharine Kramer,
    Katharsis Meadows,
    Blanchardville, WI.

        To the Committee,

        At Mission ABQ Learning Gardens in Albuquerque, New Mexico, we grow
    produce and grains with a focus on education, sustainability, and
    nourishing our local community. We believe that food justice starts
    with transparency and local control.
        The EATS Act, and its rebranded counterpart, is an assault on those
    principles. Based on an attempt to undo California's Prop 12, it would
    take decision-making power away from states and communities and hand it
    to corporate agriculture. That's not in the best interest of farmers,
    consumers, or the environment.
        Please stand with local food systems and the people who depend on
    them. Oppose the EATS Act and protect Prop 12 and state agriculture
    laws like it.
                Sincerely,

    James Landry,
    Mission ABQ Learning Gardens,
    Albuquerque, NM.

        To the Committee,

        At Suki Farms in Powder Springs, Georgia, we raise alpacas with
    care, purpose, and a commitment to sustainable agriculture. We are
    firmly opposed to the EATS Act and any renamed version of it.
        This legislation strips states of their rights and serves the
    interests of large industrial operations, not independent farmers like
    us. Local control and transparency matter. Laws like California's
    Proposition 12 are examples of how states can set thoughtful standards
    that reflect the values of their residents. Without that ability, small
    farms lose their voice.
        Please protect laws like Prop 12. Protect states' rights and
    support the farms that reflect the values of their communities.
                Sincerely,

    Ric Larred,
    Suki Farms,
    Powder Springs, GA.

        Dear Members of Congress,

        We are Kerry & Michelle Loggins from Poplar Creek Farm & Produce in
    Wentworth, North Carolina. We raise pigs on pasture-happy pigs who roll
    in mud, root in the earth, and live in a way that honors their nature.
    It's not just better for them; it's better for us, our soil, and our
    customers.
        We are writing to express our deep opposition to the EATS Act. This
    bill threatens to erase the progress North Carolina and other states
    have made in animal welfare and local food transparency. It hands
    control of farming standards to the Federal Government and mega-
    industrial producers who don't share our values.
        The families who buy from us do so because they care how their food
    is raised. The EATS Act would rob them of that choice.
        Please stand up for small farmers and vote no on the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Kerry & Michelle Loggins,
    Poplar Creek Farm & Produce, NC.

        To the Committee,

        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter.
    The attempt to override Prop 12 through Federal legislation is a
    dangerous precedent. It disregards both the democratic process and
    states' rights. Farmers who comply with humane standards benefit from
    these laws, not suffer. The EATS Act would hand control over to
    industrial producers with no regard for the consequences on farms like
    mine. That's unacceptable.
        Accordingly, I ask that the Committee please continue to listen to
    the will of voters and uphold laws like Prop 12. Thank you for your
    time.
                Respectfully,

    Lone Star North Farm,
    Townsend, Tennessee.

        To the Committee,

        At Longleaf Pasture Farm in Jasper, Florida, we raise cattle, hogs,
    and chickens organically and humanely. We believe in transparency,
    responsible stewardship, and giving animals a life worth living.
        Prop 12 does not hurt family farms. It opens up market
    opportunities for farms like ours that already meet or exceed those
    expectations.
        Please protect the rights of states and the interests of
    independent farmers. Reject attempts to weaken Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Longleaf Pasture Farm,
    Jasper, Florida.

        To the Committee,

        At Longshadows Ranch in Hulbert, Oklahoma, we grow culinary and
    medicinal herbs with care and purpose. Our work supports well-being,
    biodiversity, and a deeper connection between land and life.
        We oppose the EATS Act (whether in its original or rebranded form)
    and other attempts to weaken California's Proposition 12 because they
    strip states of the right to regulate how food is produced and sold.
    State and local governments need the flexibility to support small
    farms, responsible practices, and consumer choice.
        Please defend state sovereignty and the future of independent
    farming. Oppose the EATS Act and any other attempt to dismantle Prop 12
    and laws like it.
                Sincerely,

    Longshadows Ranch,
    Hulbert, Oklahoma.

        To the Members of Congress,

        We are seeing an uprising of concern for animal welfare reform in
    this country. In the age of information, more and more people are
    discovering how their food is produced and we are not happy. The will
    of the public is being felt from the free-market to the ballot box and
    the factory farm industry in this country is scrambling for any way to
    preserve the status quo. Their disdainful practices have been exposed
    and rather than adapt, they run to Congress. That's where the EATS
    [A]ct comes in, or the King amendment, or whatever they are calling it
    this time. The factory farm lobby had to re-brand their legislation but
    it's still lurking in the farm bill, waiting to sneak through and
    abolish the sovereignty of every state in this nation. We need our
    elected officials to stand up to the special interests for once. We
    need you to serve the will of the public. We need you to regulate
    multi-national corporations instead of private citizens. Please stand
    up for the family farms and the consumers across this great nation. We
    are tired of being ignored and trampled upon. We are building our new,
    better way of life that rings with truth for all who choose to see. We
    want you there with us. We only ask that you do what you know is right
    and reject amendments like the EATS [A]ct that seek silence the will of
    the public of this great nation.

    Patrick Madden,
    Mastodon Farm,
    Clayton, MI.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        As a proud and dedicated farmer, I have always believed that the
    standards we hold ourselves to impact not just the quality of the
    products we produce, but also the trust we build with our consumers. It
    is because of that belief that I support Proposition 12, which
    establishes basic, humane standards that reflect what most Americans
    expect from their food system. These aren't radical ideas. Instead,
    they are practical and achievable.
        It is alarming to see Federal efforts like the EATS Act and the
    Food Security and Farm Protection Act attempt to strip away those
    standards. These bills threaten states' rights and ignore the growing
    number of farmers who are already working to meet or exceed Prop 12's
    requirements. I urge you to defend this progress, defend the hard-
    working farmers, protect Proposition 12 and support a future in
    agriculture that prioritizes sustainability, safety, and transparency.
                Sincerely,

    Stephanie Matlock,
    Cobblestone Farm, Colorado.

        To the House Agriculture Committee,

        Farming is more than a business--it's a way of life rooted in
    responsibility. Many of us in agriculture see ourselves as caretakers:
    of animals, of land, and of the communities we feed. That's why
    Proposition 12 matters. It affirms the principle that how we raise
    animals reflects who we are as a society.
        This law doesn't impose anything unreasonable. It simply ensures
    that food production meets basic standards of decency. When voters
    chose to pass Proposition 12, they were expressing a value shared by
    many of us in agriculture: that integrity and compassion should guide
    how we grow food.
        Legislation that seeks to overturn Prop 12 ignores that public
    mandate and undermines the credibility of farmers who believe in doing
    the right thing. We should be working to build trust with the people we
    feed, not eroding it.
        Thank you for considering the voices of those of us committed to
    responsible farming. We respectfully urge you to protect Proposition 12
    and reject attempts to undermine it.
                Sincerely,

    Andrew and Beverly McDowell,
    Hidden Pond Farm LLC.

        Congresswoman Craig,

        At MeMaws Honeybees and Double SS Farm in Lebanon, Missouri, we
    raise goats and egg-laying hens (along with bees) and pay special
    attention to their welfare. We're part of a growing network of farmers
    who believe food should come from systems that nurture, not exploit,
    animals and the land.
        Proposition 12 reflects the will of voters who support that vision.
    Attempts to dismantle it not only silence democratic process, but also
    harm the viability of farms like ours. Please continue to support
    ethical, independent agriculture by defending Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    MeMaws Honeybees and Double SS Farm.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

      Protect Proposition 12.

        My name is Peggy M. Miller, and I operate/own Highland Winds LLC in
    Missoula, Montana. As a grower of herbs for sale, and a medical
    herbalist, I've come to learn the importance of organics and healthy
    food.
        While I don't raise livestock, I support Proposition 12 and similar
    laws because they protect something fundamental: the right of states
    and consumers to demand ethical standards in the food they buy and the
    ethics of raising healthy animals.
        Prop 12 ensures that products sold in California meet basic animal
    welfare requirements. That's not government overreach, that's voters
    choosing to align their values with their purchases. Undermining that
    right doesn't just affect pigs or chickens, it affects farmers like me,
    who work hard to meet the expectations of thoughtful consumers.
        Family farms thrive when laws recognize the importance of care,
    transparency, and integrity. That's what Prop 12 does. Please protect
    it, and what it stands for.
                Sincerely,

    Peggy M. Miller,
    Owner: Highland Winds, LLC

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Kara O'Brien, and I run a small farm stay (three
    airbnbs) in Atlanta, Georgia that includes a few beloved alpacas,
    bunnies, chickens, guanacos, llamas, bamboo forest, dogs, cats,
    reclaimed buildings, and a welcoming environment for guests to
    reconnect with land, animals, and rural life in an urban setting.
        I care deeply about how we treat animals and grow food in this
    country. In fact, our small farm began with a desire to keep chickens
    and teach my daughter that they can live long lives of care, while
    providing us breakfast, as they live happy healthy free range lives as
    long as they wish.
        That's why I'm writing to express my strong support for
    California's Proposition 12, and to urge you to reject any Federal
    legislation, including the EATS Act or the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, that seeks to weaken or override it.
        Prop 12 reflects what more and more people are asking for: food
    raised with care and conscience. It doesn't force farmers to do
    anything; it simply sets expectations for what's allowed in
    California's marketplace, a state whose residents made their values
    clear at the ballot box. Voters wanted to stop extreme confinement of
    animals. They wanted transparency. They wanted better choices. And many
    farmers around the country rose to meet that call.
        We should be encouraging that shift, not undoing it through Federal
    overreach.
        From my vantage point, guests who visit and stay at our farm are
    curious about where food comes from, and they want to support systems
    that reflect their values. They love that our animals are rescued and
    pampered. They love that they are aging well past their expected
    lifetime. They love the care and devotion we lavish on these lovely
    sentient beings.
        When we ignore or override those values/ethics, this basic level of
    humanity, we erode trust but more deeply, we betray our own sense of
    morality.
        Please preserve state laws that reflect their citizens choosing a
    more humane and kinder standard. And please protect the rights of
    responsible farmers who have already invested in doing better.
        As humans, we can and should do better towards animals.
                Respectfully,

    Kara O'Brien,
    Atlanta, GA.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        I'm David Ogburn, a cattleman from Leoma, Tennessee. I raise
    Hereford bulls and females and am a proud member of the Tennessee
    Cattlemen's Association. I'm writing to ask you to oppose the EATS Act,
    the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
        As Mike Schultz, founder of the Kansas Cattlemen's Association,
    recently explained, ``The EATS Act is nothing but a Trojan Horse
    designed to put family farmers out of business and give multinational
    conglomerates like JBS and Chinese-owned Smithfield an even greater
    advantage than they already have.''
        California's Prop 12 created opportunities for producers who want
    to do right by animals and consumers. The Save Our Bacon Act is just
    another attempt to roll back those standards and let the big players
    cut corners.
        I stand with the many cattle producers, hog farmers, and poultry
    growers across the country who are saying enough is enough. Defend Prop
    12. Oppose the EATS Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
                Sincerely,

    David Ogburn,
    Leoma, TN.

      To: Members of the House Agriculture Committee

        Oh Goodness Homestead is a small family farm in Olympia, WA, where
    we raise goats.
        We support Proposition 12 because it helps responsible farming
    having a chance to survive in a system dominated by massive operations.
        Prop 12 isn't a burden to us; it's a signal to consumers that how
    their food is produced matters. It aligns the marketplace with values
    that small farmers have always carried: respect for animals, the
    environment and public health.
        Rolling it back would do real harm, not to corporate agriculture,
    but to families like ours who are trying to do it right.
                Sincerely,

    Oh Goodness Homestead

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        Farming is about more than producing food. It is about doing the
    right thing by consumers, animals, andthe land. Proposition 12 and
    similar laws set reasonable standards to ensure that food is
    producedethically and safely. That is not extreme. Rather, it is what
    the public expects, and it is what I believe in as a farmer.
        I respectfully urge you to safeguard Proposition 12 and similar
    laws by rejecting attempts to squander them. Bills like the EATS Act
    and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act undermine the progress we
    have made towards a more sustainable and transparent food system.
    Instead of lowering the bar, let's raise it. Please protect Proposition
    12 so that our food system can continue to flourish.
        As owners of Fox Run Vineyards, our family is keenly aware of the
    impact we have on the community and the environment. Our mission at Fox
    Run Vineyards is to reduce our environmental impact through meaningful
    and consistent changes to our business each year. In 2002 Fox Run was
    certified a Lake Friendly Farmer, which means none of our farming
    practices will negatively impact the water quality of Seneca Lake, and
    In 2023, Fox Run was named a certified sustainable vineyard by the New
    York Wine & Grape Foundation.\1\ We understand the need for strict
    legislation to product the food we buy in our stores and the grapes and
    wines we produce here in the Finger Lakes. Keep the current standards
    and Protect Proposition 12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://newyorkwines.org/industry/sustainability/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Respectively,

    Scott Osborn,
    President and Co-Owner
    Fox Run Vineyards.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        Pemberley Farms is a small, independent egg farm located in
    southeastern Nebraska. Our hens are raised on pasture with access to
    the outdoors year-round, and we market directly to consumers who care
    about where their food comes from and how it's produced.
        We are writing today in strong opposition to the so-called Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act (S. 1326), which is anything but
    protective for small farms like ours. The bill is a thinly veiled
    attempt to overturn Proposition 12 in California and strip states of
    their right to set standards for the food sold within their borders.
    That is a dangerous precedent, for farming, for democracy, and for the
    future of local food systems.
        Our farm meets Prop 12 standards, and then some, not because we're
    forced to, but because we believe it's the right way to farm. When
    voters in California said they wanted to support higher animal welfare,
    they opened up opportunity for farmers like us who already do things
    the right way.
        S. 1326 would undercut that progress by shielding industrial
    operators from accountability and turning back the clock on animal
    welfare and consumer trust. It sends a message that corporations, not
    voters, get to decide about agriculture. That's not freedom, and it's
    not food security.
        If this bill becomes law, it won't help small farms, it will crush
    them. It will reward confinement and corner-cutting, and penalize
    farmers who go above and beyond to raise animals humanely. We urge you
    to reject this bill and defend both state sovereignty and the future of
    ethical, sustainable farming in America.
        Thank you for your time and your commitment to supporting
    responsible farmers.
                Sincerely,

    Pemberley Farms.

        To the Committee,

        At Pinedora Farms in Arizona, we grow vegetables using permaculture
    design in commercial greenhouses and are deeply committed to organic
    farming, holistic nutrition, and education. Through our community
    programs, including children's farming experiences, health and
    sustainability courses, and support for off-grid living, we aim to
    inspire a new generation to care for the [E]arth and each other.
        We support Proposition 12 because it affirms values that matter to
    farms like ours: ethical stewardship, transparency, and the right of
    people to choose food that aligns with their beliefs. The EATS Act, and
    any attempt to revive it, would undermine those values and remove
    states' ability to set standards that reflect their communities.
        A better food system depends on integrity, education, and respect,
    not shortcuts. Please protect Prop 12 and reject the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Pinedora Farms,
    Arizona.

      Re: Support for Proposition 12 and Humane Farming standards

        Dear Committee Members,

        Recent claims blaming California's Proposition 12 for rising egg
    prices are misleading. Proposition 12 simply establishes modest,
    commonsense standards for eggs produced and sold in California--
    standards that prevent needless animal suffering and reduce food safety
    risks.
        As a farm that specializes in eggs and poultry, we want to set the
    record straight: Proposition 12 and other cage-free laws are not the
    cause of price increases. The real driver is the ongoing avian flu
    outbreak, which has devastated poultry farms across the nation.
        The egg regulations under Proposition 12 took effect in January
    2022. Independent economic research, including studies from
    institutions like UC Davis, has shown that the law's impact on egg
    prices has been minimal.
        By contrast, the avian flu outbreak has been catastrophic. In the
    final quarter of 2024 alone, over 20 million egg-laying hens were
    culled due to the disease. This dramatic loss in supply has led to the
    current rise in egg prices. Regardless of whether hens are raised in
    cage-free, conventional, or pasture-based systems, such losses affect
    supply and cost for everyone.
        Farmers who have invested heavily in cage-free systems would be
    severely harmed if Proposition 12 were repealed. Many of us have spent
    years and substantial resources upgrading our operations to meet both
    humane standards and growing consumer demand. Rolling back these laws
    would destabilize the market and punish those of us working toward a
    more ethical and sustainable future.
        More importantly, Proposition 12 is simply the right thing to do.
    It ensures that hens have enough space to move naturally, spread their
    wings, and engage in basic behaviors that promote health and well-
    being. Extensive research has shown that extreme confinement causes
    severe stress and physical ailments in animals.
        At Tzaddik Farm, we see firsthand that happier, healthier hens
    produce better-quality eggs. Consumers are increasingly demanding food
    that reflects their values--and laws like Proposition 12 help make that
    possible.
        Farmers who have embraced humane practices should not be penalized.
    Rather than weakening these hard-fought reforms, we should strengthen
    disease prevention efforts and support those committed to responsible,
    sustainable agriculture.
        I urge Members of this Committee not only to preserve Proposition
    12, but to champion similar reforms nationwide.

    Nathan Rakov,
    Tzaddik Farm.

      Regarding S. 1326

        As owners of a small Ohio farm that follows organic farming
    practices, we feel that the current laws regarding animal welfare and
    the humane raising of farm animals are inadequate. The Food Security
    and Farm Protection Act (formerly the EATS [A]ct) should not be passed
    because it restricts the rights of any states willing to define and
    confront animal welfare within their borders.
        Historically legislation for human rights, food safety,
    environmental protection, and even auto emissions, has often originated
    in a forward-looking state, and then gone on to be adopted nationally.
    In most cases this has served in the best interests of our society.
    Please do not infringe on the rights of our ``states'' to move in a
    direction they feel best serves their citizens.

    Tom Rapini and Valerie Garrett,
    A's and O's Farm,
    Mentor, OH.

        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the
    Committee,

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. My name is
    Julie Rawson, and I co-own Many Hands Organic Farm in Barre,
    Massachusetts. For over 40 years, we have grown food rooted in natural
    principles--organic, regenerative, and humane. We are proud to provide
    our community with high-quality produce, meat, and eggs raised with
    care for animals, people, and the planet. This philosophy has shaped
    our success, and it reflects the values of the customers and neighbors
    we serve.
        That's why I must express deep concern over attempts to override
    state laws like Massachusetts' Question 3 and California's Proposition
    12, both passed by voters to ensure basic humane standards for farm
    animals. These laws are not radical. They reflect a broad, bipartisan
    public consensus that farm animals should not be kept in extreme
    confinement.
        Some special interests in the pork industry now seek to undo these
    laws. This is a direct threat to farmers like me, and to the very idea
    of state-level decision-making in agriculture. If enacted, policies
    like the EATS Act or Food Security and Farm Protection Act would force
    us to compete with low-cost, low-welfare industrial products, many from
    foreign-owned companies, regardless of what our communities have voted
    for or believe in.
        This provision is not just bad policy, it's a betrayal of
    democratic process and market fairness. State laws like Question 3 and
    Proposition 12 have opened opportunities for ethical producers to
    thrive. Dismantling these important laws would shut those doors,
    prioritizing corporate consolidation over consumer demand and public
    interest.
        Massachusetts and California voters chose to end the intensive
    confinement of animals. That choice deserves respect not erasure at the
    Federal level.
        We are grateful to Representative Jim McGovern for his leadership
    in defending farmers, states' rights, and the humane treatment of
    animals. I urge all Members of this Committee to join him.
                Sincerely,

    Julie Rawson,
    Co-owner, Many Hands Organic Farm,
    Barre, Massachusetts.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We are Renegade Ridge, a small, independent pig farm committed to
    raising animals with care, dignity, and respect. We proudly exceed
    Proposition 12 standards, our pigs live outdoors, with space to root,
    roam, and live as pigs are meant to. We chose this model not just
    because it's humane, but because it's healthier for the animals and
    safer for the people who eat our food.
        Proposition 12 set a baseline for decency. It's a reflection of
    evolving science and public values, an acknowledgment that extreme
    confinement is not only cruel but also linked to increased disease
    risk. By ensuring animals have basic freedom of movement, Prop 12
    improves welfare, reduces stress-related illness, and promotes safer
    food.
        Laws like Prop 12 also give farmers like us, who do the right thing
    every day, a fair shot. When industrial producers cut corners with
    extreme confinement, they undercut farmers committed to ethical,
    sustainable practices.
        We urge you to reject any legislation, including the so-called Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act, that would undo this progress.
    Rolling back Prop 12 would harm animals, compromise public health, and
    reward the worst actors in the industry at the expense of responsible
    farmers.
                Respectfully,

    Renegade Ridge.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        Right from the Hive is a small beekeeping operation in upstate New
    York, committed to ethical practices and healthy ecosystems. We work
    closely with local farms and understand how important it is to align
    farming with public trust.
        Proposition 12 gives consumers a voice and supports farmers who
    already raise animals with compassion. Trying to override it only
    serves those looking to cut corners. It undermines both the integrity
    of the food system and the rights of states to govern within their
    borders.
        Let's not move backward. Keep Prop 12 intact.
                Sincerely,

    Right from the Hive,
    New York.

        To the Committee,

        At Iron Quail Ranch in Marana, Arizona, we regeneratively raise
    meat goats and poultry with care and respect for both the animals and
    the land. Like many small producers, we believe that farming should
    reflect the values of the communities it serves, not be managed through
    distant Federal regulation.
        I support state and voter rights over Federal regulation. The EATS
    Act, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, or any other name would
    strip states and local farmers of the ability to set their own
    agricultural standards. That's not just bad policy, it's a direct
    threat to small ranches like mine that rely on transparency, integrity,
    and local trust.
        Please stand up for state sovereignty and for independent farmers
    across the country.
        Reject the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Michael Rodocker,
    Iron Quail Ranch,
    Marana, Arizona.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        We raise pigs the old-fashioned way at Rosy Buck Farm, on pasture,
    with fresh air, sunshine, and space to roam. Proposition 12 represents
    a basic standard of decency. It's not extreme to say animals should be
    able to turn around and lie down comfortably.
        When voters in California passed Prop 12, they sent a clear
    message: consumers care about how their food is raised. And for those
    of us already raising pigs humanely, that's good news. Prop 12 creates
    an opportunity for small and responsible farmers.
        Overturning this law would be a step backward--for the animals, for
    farmers like us who already meet these standards, and for consumers who
    want to make informed, ethical choices. Please keep Prop 12 intact.
                Sincerely,

    Rosy Buck Farm.

        To the Committee,

        At Yes Ma'am Country Harvest in Gillette, Wyoming, we raise cattle
    with a commitment to integrity, animal care, and serving our local
    community. We believe that states should have the freedom to reflect
    the values of their residents in how food is produced and sold.
        We strongly oppose the EATS Act, under any name, because it strips
    states of their ability to enact meaningful agricultural standards.
    Laws like California's Proposition 12 are examples of how states can
    respond to voter concerns with thoughtful policies. The EATS Act would
    erase those decisions--handing more power to industrial agriculture and
    taking it away from farmers and communities.
        Please stand with independent producers and protect the right of
    states to guide their own agricultural future. Reject the EATS Act and
    keep Prop 12 and laws like it intact.
                Sincerely,

    Madison, Janell, & Laura Roush,
    Yes Ma'am Country Harvest,
    Gillette, WY.

        To the Committee,

        At Bit of Elysium in Ocala, Florida, we raise goats and chickens
    with care and intention, participating in a tradition of small-scale
    dairy farming that prioritizes animal well-being and land stewardship.
        We support laws like California's Proposition 12. We oppose the
    EATS Act (and any repackaged version of it) because it attacks the
    right of states to enact policies that reflect their citizens' values.
    Whether it's about food safety, ethical treatment, or environmental
    standards, those decisions belong with the people and their
    representatives and not multinational corporations. Farm animals
    deserve to live a healthy, clean, and comfortable life even those that
    are destined for the table. We support laws like California's
    Proposition 12 to keep the animals and the people that work with them
    healthy.
        Please reject this overreach and stand with independent farmers and
    local communities. And please protect Prop 12 and laws like it.
                Sincerely,

    Candace Roy,
    Bit of Elysium, mini Lamancha goats.

        To the Committee,

        At Sammy's Farm in Grape Creek, Texas, we raise free-range animals
    and believe in giving our animals a good life. We also believe in the
    freedom of states to choose how food is produced and sold within their
    borders.
        We serve a community that increasingly asks where its food comes
    from and how it was produced. Proposition 12 gives us the framework to
    answer those questions with integrity.
        The law's multi-year timeline was generous by agricultural
    standards. Responsible family farmers have seen the benefits: stronger
    markets, better animal health, and growing trust from our buyers.
        We urge you to stand against any Federal attempt to weaken Prop 12,
    like the EATS Act. Let the states lead when they are willing to raise
    the bar.
                Sincerely,

    Sammy's Farm,
    Grape Creek, TX.

        To the Committee,

        At Horizon Honey LLC in Beulah, Wyoming, we care for bees and
    produce honey that reflects the health of our land and the integrity of
    our practices. Pollinators are foundational to food production, and so
    is trust in where that food comes from.
        Proposition 12 sets commonsense standards for animal housing and
    gives both producers and consumers peace of mind that the basics of
    humane care are being met.
        These are not extreme standards. They reflect what responsible
    farms already do.
        Please preserve Proposition 12; it's working. And I urge the
    Committee to reject the EATS Act, Food Security and Farm Protection Act
    and any attempts to dismantle Prop 12 or laws like it.
                Sincerely,

    Colt Sell,
    Horizon Honey LLC,
    Beulah, Wyoming.

        To the Committee,

        I recently heard about the disastrous EATS Act. As a former
    regenerative agriculture farmer in Michigan and remain deeply committed
    to responsible, independent agriculture. I believe states should have
    the right to support farmers who prioritize quality and ethical
    practices.
        As a Michigan shepherd who made the well-being of my sheep a top
    priority, I saw firsthand how standards in our state reflected the
    public's growing concern about how food is produced. Michigan passed an
    anti-confinement law that phases out extreme confinement of egg-laying
    hens, veal calves, and pregnant pigs, ensuring animals have enough
    space to lie down, turn around, and extend their limbs. These reforms
    mirror the intent behind California's Proposition 12, and represent a
    broader movement toward transparency, animal welfare, and consumer
    trust. Whether in Michigan or elsewhere, states must retain the ability
    to set and uphold these kinds of reasonable protections.
        The EATS Act would strip that ability away. It would override
    voter-approved laws and reward large-scale operations that resist
    transparency and accountability. Farmers had ample time to adjust to
    these standards. Choosing not to was a business decision, not a
    justification to dismantle progress others worked hard to achieve.
        Please stand with independent farmers, past and present, and with
    states that are trying to do the right thing. Protect local laws like
    Prop 12 and reject the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Brian J. Smith,
    Former Michigan Farmer and Concerned Citizen.

        To the Committee,

        My name is Leah Smith, and my family owns Nodding Thistle, a 72
    acre organic and diversified farm in Nashville, Michigan. Since 1984,
    we have practiced sustainable farming with a focus on organically grown
    vegetables, herbs, small berries, fruit trees, and humanely raised
    dairy and beef cattle, and egg-laying and ``table carcass'' chickens.
        Our philosophy is rooted in working with nature--not against it--to
    produce healthy, flavorful food through practices like soil building,
    diverse crop selection, the fostering of beneficial insect populations,
    and minimal irrigation. We believe that sustainability, transparency,
    and animal welfare are essential to the future of American agriculture;
    that it is what many of both farmers and consumers want.
        I am writing in strong support of California's Proposition 12 and
    in firm opposition to the EATS Act and any reincarnation of it in the
    House farm bill. These Federal efforts seek to override state-level
    agricultural standards, including vital animal welfare laws, and would
    upend the democratic process that allowed voters to adopt policies
    reflecting their values.
        Many of us have made serious investments in compliance with these
    higher standards--not because we were forced to, but because we believe
    it is the right way to farm. To nullify those laws now would be both
    economically and morally irresponsible. It would punish farmers who
    stepped up, reward those who refused to adapt, and undermine the
    consumer trust that is so essential to our local economies. A lack of
    this trust is, in my opinion, already leading to a lack of patronage.
        The EATS Act and similar provisions in the current House farm bill
    would also violate state sovereignty--denying Michiganders, and
    citizens across the country, the ability to make decisions about the
    kind of agriculture we want in our communities. This approach is deeply
    undemocratic, and it clearly does not represent the will of the people.
    Even though Proposition 12 is California's business, Michigan could be
    next.
        In contrast, Proposition 12 reflects a growing consensus among
    consumers and farmers alike--that higher welfare standards matter, and
    that farming can be both ethical, environmentally sound, and
    economically viable, as well as truly beneficial to human health.
        I urge you to reject the EATS Act and all related language that
    would invalidate state laws. Uphold Proposition 12, and with it, the
    voices of farmers and voters working for a more responsible and
    ultimately resilient food system.
                Sincerely,

    Leah Smith,
    Nodding Thistle Farm,
    Nashville, MI.

      To: Congresswoman Angie Craig and Congressman Jim McGovern

        My name is Stephen Soros, and I run The Song of Orchids, a small
    specialty farm on the Big Island of Hawai`i. We cultivate rare tropical
    orchids and fruit using regenerative practices passed down over
    generations.
        Though we do not raise animals, we stand firmly in support of
    California's Proposition 12. It reflects a growing national movement to
    align food production with compassion and care. When big industry
    fights laws like Prop 12, it's often to preserve the status quo of low-
    cost, low-welfare production. But Prop 12 helps build a future where
    integrity is rewarded, not punished.
        Please protect Proposition 12 and laws like it. The soul of
    American agriculture depends on it.
                Mahalo,

    Stephen Soros,
    The Song of Orchids,
    Honoka`a, HI.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        At Sourland Farm, we run a small family operation atop the Sourland
    Mountain in Hillsborough Township, New Jersey. We raise egg-laying hens
    and provide our local community as well as far beyond with the freshest
    natural eggs possible, which are collected daily. Because we work in
    small batches, we see the impact of every choice we make on our
    animals, our land, and the people we serve. Our customers expect and
    demand the very best products from our farm, be it eating eggs, fertile
    eggs, or live poultry.
        That's why we strongly support Proposition 12 and oppose any
    Federal effort to weaken or overturn it. This law sets basic, humane
    standards for how animals are treated. For those of us who raise hens
    with care, giving them room to move, peck, and behave naturally, Prop
    12 validates our values.
        Our customers buy from us because they know we prioritize animal
    welfare. They want eggs that come from hens that weren't confined to
    cages their entire lives and are fed all-natural feed that is
    Antibiotic Free, GMO Free, Hormone Free, Vaccine Free, Pesticide Free,
    Chemical Free. Prop 12 reinforces that growing market and keeps
    industrial producers from cutting corners at the expense of both
    animals and smaller farms like ours.
        Family farms should be part of the solution, not collateral damage
    in a system that puts profit over principles. We urge you to uphold
    state-level laws like Prop 12 and protect the right of voters to choose
    higher standards for food and farming.
                Respectfully,

    Sourland Farm,
    ``Happy Hens Lay Healthy Eggs''.

        Dear Committee Members,

        As a Connecticut-based farm, we strongly support Proposition 12.
    The law reflects a basic truth many small farmers already know: how
    animals are treated matters. We've watched how efforts like Prop 12 are
    reshaping the agricultural landscape in a good way, rewarding values-
    driven farming, not cutting corners. The EATS Act and similar proposals
    threaten to erase that progress. Please reject those efforts and stand
    with the farms that reflect what voters and consumers overwhelmingly
    support.

    Amelia South,
    Black Sun Farm.

        Dear Committee Members,

        My name is Amy Surburg, and I run Berry Goods Farm, where we raise
    laying hens and grow food for our family and our community. I'm a
    former engineer turned farmer and mother of five. These days, I spend
    more time observing the ecosystem in our backyard than any lab, and
    I've come to understand just how connected everything is. Our chickens
    fertilize the soil and help manage pests, and in return, they get to
    live the way chickens should--able to move, scratch, perch, and spread
    their wings.
        That's why I support Proposition 12, because it reflects the kind
    of thoughtful, practical animal care that farmers like me already
    believe in. Prop 12 hasn't just affirmed better standards; it has
    created real market opportunities for those of us who prioritize
    humane, sustainable practices. We've seen increased demand from buyers
    who want eggs from farms where animals aren't crammed into cages. That
    demand supports small-scale, diversified farms like ours and encourages
    more farmers to rethink how they raise animals.
        I strongly oppose efforts to dismantle laws like Prop 12 through
    Federal overreach, such as the EATS Act or provisions in the farm bill
    that would block states from setting humane farming standards. Voters
    across the country (including here in Indiana) want food systems that
    reflect compassion and integrity. Those voices deserve to be heard.
        We're raising our kids on this farm to understand where food comes
    from, how to be good stewards of our animals, and why doing what's
    right matters for our health and the health of our community. Please
    don't take that choice away from our family or the many others who
    believe farming can be both ethical and productive.
                Sincerely,

    Amy Surburg,
    Farm Owner,
    Berry Goods Farm LLC.

        Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We are Patty and Erick Taylor of Devon Point Farm in North
    Stonington, Connecticut, where we raise humanely treated beef and pork,
    including happy, healthy pigs raised outdoors with care and respect.
        I'm writing to express my strong support for Proposition 12 and
    opposition to the EATS Act, and to share what I've seen firsthand: that
    higher standards for animal welfare aren't just ethical, they're also
    good for business.
        I've worked with pigs long enough to know what they need to thrive.
    They are intelligent, social animals. When they're given the space to
    move freely, root, and rest comfortably, they're healthier, more
    resilient, and less prone to stress and illness. The core standards
    outlined in Prop 12, like ensuring animals can turn around and lie
    down, reflect what many of us who care deeply about animal welfare
    already know and practice.
        Since Prop 12 passed, we've seen growing demand from buyers who
    want pork from systems that meet these standards. It's created market
    opportunities for farms like mine that prioritize animal care and
    transparency.
        Proposition 12 was passed by voters, upheld by the Supreme Court,
    and gave the industry years to adapt. It reflects a broader change
    happening in agriculture, and it's one we should be leaning into, not
    fighting against.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective. I hope you
    will stand by Prop 12 and the farmers who are helping build a more
    humane and future-focused food system.
                Sincerely,

    Patty and Erick Taylor,
    Devon Point Farm,
    North Stonington, CT.

        Dear Rep. Cline,

        As a farmer who raises goats and swine in your district, I am
    writing to express my support for Prop 12 and laws like it across the
    country.
        Local communities know what is best for themselves and should be
    able to pass laws protecting animal welfare, farmers and consumers. On
    July 23rd, the House Agriculture Committee is holding a hearing on the
    ``implications'' of Proposition 12, which bans the sale of caged/crated
    eggs, pork and veal in California.
        Under the guise of protecting independent farmers like me, some
    House Members are attempting to roll back Prop 12.
        In reality, overturning Prop 12 would undermine independent farmers
    by removing important market opportunities for those of us who have
    already invested in more humane animal housing systems to meet the
    growing demand for higher-welfare products.
        I own and operate a small farm in the Shenandoah Valley near
    Bridgewater, raising Nubian dairy goats and Gloucestershire Old Spot
    heritage pigs for sale as breeder animals for other farms here in
    Virginia and throughout the country. Rolling back proposition 12 would
    allow farmers to produce more product in less space, thereby profiting
    unfairly from their inhumane farming practices. It would further
    disadvantage me in competing with big Ag, my business competitor,
    competitors that receive handouts from the Federal farm bill (handouts
    that I do not receive), competitors that raise animals in horrid
    conditions to achieve an economy of scale advantage that would require
    me to sell my conscious to match.
        Eliminating laws like Prop 12 would further entrench the industrial
    confinement system that puts farmers like me at a disadvantage in the
    marketplace every day.
        I fully support local control and the ability for states to take
    action against the consolidation of the agriculture industry in support
    of a more humane and healthy food system.
        I urge you to oppose any future efforts to overturn Prop 12,
    whether by the EATS Act or otherwise.
                Thank you for your consideration,

    Bill Theiss,
    Fawn Crossing Farms,
    Bridgewater, VA.

        To the Members of Congress,

        My name is Bobby Tucker, and I run Okfuskee Farm in Siler City,
    North Carolina. We raise pastured pork, pigs that are given space to
    roam, root, and live as pigs were meant to. Rather than altering the
    inherent nature of pigs, we work with their characteristics and
    integrate it as an ecological tool. This plays a part of our whole farm
    management, that also includes sheep, steers, fruit and nut crops, and
    mixed vegetables. Our farming methods, and ultimately the high-quality
    products that they yield, are the foundation of what our customers
    value.
        We support Proposition 12 because it reflects the kind of farming
    that respects animals and rewards responsible animal and land
    stewardship. Our pigs have room to forage, socialize, and live without
    being confined in crates. That's not just a moral choice, it results in
    healthier animals, reduced input costs, and stronger trust with our
    customers.
        Since the law was passed, we've seen growing demand from retailers
    and restaurants who are looking for pork that meets Prop 12 standards.
    That demand has created real business opportunities for producers like
    us who raise animals with care and transparency.
        Prop 12 didn't just set rules, it responded to a clear shift in
    what consumers expect from their food. Overturning it would not only
    ignore those expectations, it would penalize farmers who are already
    meeting them.
        Proposition 12 isn't some radical new idea; it aligns with what we
    already do. It rewards humane animal care, and integrity over
    confinement-based shortcuts. The EATS Act, on the other hand, is a
    giveaway to industrial agriculture and would strip away the rights of
    both consumers and states.
        North Carolina is full of people who care about how animals are
    raised and want to support farmers--particularly small farmers--who
    utilize humane livestock and land stewardship practices. Please protect
    laws like Prop 12 and reject the EATS Act, because ethical hog farming
    matters.
                Sincerely,

    Bobby Tucker,
    Okfuskee Farm,
    Siler City, NC.

        Dear Chairman Glenn ``GT'' Thompson and Members of the Committee:

        We're proud to farm in Pennsylvania, the state Chairman Thompson
    represents. At Two Creek Farm, we raise pigs on pasture and rotate them
    across our wooded acreage in a way that supports soil health and animal
    well-being.
        Proposition 12 reflects values we see right here in Pennsylvania:
    decency, independence, and doing right. This law ensures animals raised
    for food are treated with respect, and it recognizes farmers who've
    chosen more humane, more resilient systems.
        Undermining Prop 12 through Federal overreach doesn't serve farmers
    or consumers. It serves the biggest players in the industry, while
    making it harder for farms like ours to compete and grow. Please
    protect Prop 12 and oppose legislation like the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act.
                Respectfully,

    Two Creek Farm.

        To the Members of Congress,

        My name is John Ubaldo, and I operate John Boy's Farm in Cambridge,
    New York, where we raise registered Berkshire pigs, Black Angus cattle,
    and a variety of poultry. Every animal is treated with respect and
    raised in a manner that reflects traditional, ethical agriculture.
        I strongly oppose the EATS Act. This bill would take away the
    ability of New York and other states to enact commonsense protections
    for farm animals. It threatens the future of farms like mine, which
    depend on quality, transparency, and consumer trust, not factory-style
    production.
        The EATS Act may claim to be about commerce, but in reality, it
    silences local voices and puts honest farmers at a disadvantage.
        Please oppose the EATS Act and protect the rights of states,
    farmers, and consumers.
                Respectfully,

    John Ubaldo,
    John Boy's Farm, Cambridge, NY.

        To the Members of the Agriculture Committee,

        I am asking you to oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act
    which would strip states of their right to determine their agricultural
    practices.
        At Udder Blessings in Colorado, we believe in laws like
    California's Proposition 12 (and our own state's laws that prohibit
    farm animal intensive confinement).
        The Food Security Act allows the cruel practices of puppy mills and
    intensive confinement where animals spend their entire lives barely
    able to move in filthy, dangerous conditions. These conditions increase
    the risk of bird flu and other diseases and increase the need for heavy
    antibiotic use which is harmful not only to the animals, but to our
    overall food supply. Consumers deserve to know that their food comes
    from animals treated with care. It's good for farmers, good for
    animals, and good for trust in agriculture.
        This [A]ct also causes an unfair disadvantage for farmers who raise
    their animals in healthy, humane conditions.
        Please oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the
    overreaching impact it will have on states' rights and local farms.
                Sincerely,

    Udder Blessings,
    Colorado Springs, CO

        Dear Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern,

        My name is Jeff Ward. I'm a hog farmer in Mankato, Minnesota. I've
    raised pigs most of my life, and I'm writing today in support of Prop
    12. Rolling back Prop 12 is bad news for American farmers who have made
    investments and are working hard to make a living to keep food on the
    table.
        When California voters adopted Prop 12 and the Supreme Court upheld
    it, many hog farmers saw it as a business opportunity. Same with the
    law in Massachusetts. And they're not asking for anything extreme--just
    that pigs be able to stand up, lie down, and turn around. That's common
    sense.
        Now along comes legislative attempts such as the EATS Act, trying
    to bulldoze all that progress. If it passes, the contracts farmers have
    signed and the barns they rebuilt could all go down the drain. It's
    like pulling the rug out from under folks who did the right thing.
        I hear folks claim that the EATS Act is about protecting farmers.
    Well, I am a farmer--and I don't feel protected. The EATS Act doesn't
    help independent farms. It helps the biggest players, the ones that
    never changed, the ones still hanging on to outdated ways. It helps the
    processors who want total control, not folks who are working hard to
    farm with integrity.
        If you're wondering where the industry's headed--look at the
    buyers. McDonald's, Costco, Wendy's, Safeway--they've all committed to
    getting rid of crate pork. They're not doing that for fun. They're
    doing it because their customers demanded it.
        Here's the truth: there's a divide in the pork world right now. The
    big lobbyists in D.C. say they speak for farmers, but they don't.
    They're pushing hard to eliminate Prop 12, and if you listen to them,
    Prop 12 is to be blamed for everything in the world. But it doesn't
    reflect what's happening on the ground. Meanwhile, those of us actually
    doing the work--we're adapting, we're innovating, we're succeeding. And
    we're proud of the way we raise animals.
        I've been at this a long time. I've changed with the times. And
    I've seen firsthand: you can be a good farmer, raise healthy animals,
    and still sleep at night knowing you did right by them.
        I respectfully ask that you support Prop 12. Don't punish the
    hardworking farmers who made investments. Don't roll back standards
    voters and consumers clearly support. Let's build a pork industry we
    can be proud of--one that supports small- and mid-sized farms.
        Thank you for your time.
                Sincerely,

    Jeff Ward,
    Hog Farmer,
    Mankato, Minnesota.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        At Skip Rock Ranch, located near Pearsall, Texas, we raise cattle
    with a simple mission: to produce honest, healthy beef the way our
    grandparents did. Our animals are born and raised on pasture, graze
    freely on native grasses, and are never given hormones, steroids, or
    antibiotics. We practice low-stress, humane handling techniques and
    work with a small-town butcher, allowing our customers to know exactly
    where and how their food is raised.
        We support Proposition 12 because it represents the values we hold
    dear, animal welfare, transparency, and food raised with integrity.
    This law reflects what many Americans are calling for: a shift away
    from industrialized confinement and a return to food systems rooted in
    care, quality, and accountability.
        Being from Texas, it pains me to tell you that California actually
    did something right with Prop 12. The way we raise animals today in the
    U.S. is frightening. Our family rarely eats chicken or pork, unless we
    get it directly from the farmer, because we know how it is likely
    raised on factory farms in battery cages and gestation crates. We do
    have our own backyard chickens for eggs, which helps.
        As a country, we've drifted too far from the source of our food.
    Meat that once came from trusted local butchers now often arrives in
    shrink-wrapped trays, shipped in from mega-feedlots and even overseas.
    Meanwhile, family farms and small processors are squeezed out. Prop 12
    helps put the focus back on where food comes from and how animals are
    treated before they become part of our meals.
        Efforts to overturn Prop 12 through the so-called ``Food Security
    and Farm Protection Act'' don't protect food or farms, they protect
    unchecked consolidation and a race to the bottom. Farmers like us, who
    raise animals with care and work directly with consumers, are
    undermined when laws allow the worst practices in agriculture to
    dominate the marketplace.
        We urge the Committee to preserve Proposition 12 and defend the
    rights of states and voters to demand higher standards in agriculture.
    It's not just about animal welfare, it's about the integrity of our
    food system and the survival of independent, values-driven farms like
    ours.
                Respectfully,

    Scott Wilbeck,
    Skip Rock Ranch.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee:

        At Wild Goose Ranch in Missouri, we raise a flock of 600 sheep on
    open pasture, with access to fresh water, healthy forage, and the
    freedom to move and thrive. It's a good life for them, and that care
    and respect show up in their health and in the quality of what we
    produce.
        That's why we believe standards like Proposition 12 are so
    important. They recognize and reward the kind of ethical, responsible
    farming that puts animal welfare and transparency first, not
    confinement and shortcuts.
        We are strongly opposed to the EATS Act, which would erase these
    kinds of hard-earned, commonsense standards. It threatens the progress
    being made across the country and puts independent family farmers at a
    disadvantage while giving an edge to industrial operations that cut
    corners.
        We urge the Committee to stand strong: preserve Prop 12, and reject
    the EATS Act, for farmers like us who believe in doing things the right
    way.
                With thanks,

    Wild Goose Ranch,
    Missouri.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        At Woods & Stems in Indiana, we grow mushrooms using regenerative
    practices. While we don't raise animals, we believe laws like
    Proposition 12 are crucial for building a food system that values
    ethical treatment, transparency, and sustainable farming.
        Consumers are demanding higher standards. Prop 12 helps ensure
    small farms with humane practices are not pushed aside by industrial
    producers cutting corners. This is about protecting a future where
    quality and care matter.
        Thank you for standing with family farms and voters who want
    better.
                Sincerely,

    Woods & Stems.

        Dear House Agriculture Committee Members,

        My name is Trisha Zachman, and I'm an Niman Ranch hog farmer and
    owner of Feathered Acres Learning Farm + Inn in Belgrade, Minnesota.
    I'm writing to urge you not to roll back Proposition 12--an important
    policy that protects the values of farmers, consumers, and animals
    alike.
        Rolling back Prop 12 would devastate independent farmers like me
    who have built our farms to meet and exceed these standards. We've made
    significant investments in ethical, humane farming because there is a
    market for it--and because it's the right thing to do. Our pigs are not
    raised in confinement crates. They are not part of a system that treats
    them like machines. They are raised with dignity, and Prop 12 supports
    this way of farming.
        This policy also creates a rare and critical opportunity for new
    and beginning farmers to enter the market. In an industry dominated by
    vertical integration and industrial-scale operations, niche markets
    like the one supported by Prop 12 offer a foothold--one where farmers
    can compete not by getting big, but by doing things better. Eliminating
    this policy would remove one of the few remaining viable entry points
    for the next generation of livestock farmers.
        Our rural community is stronger because of the relationships we've
    built with customers who care where their food comes from. Local
    grocers, chefs, and families actively choose to support farms that
    align with their values. When those markets disappear, so does the
    ability for farms like ours to survive--and with it, a piece of rural
    America.
        Please don't turn your back on the future of farming. Stand with
    independent producers, rural communities, and the millions of Americans
    who support humane, transparent, and local agriculture. Uphold
    Proposition 12.

    Nolan & Trisha Zachman

        To the Members of Congress,

        At Feathered Acres Farm in Belgrade, Minnesota, we raise pigs with
    care, space, and respect. As a small, independent hog farm, our animals
    are never treated like cogs in a machine--they're raised outdoors with
    the ability to move freely and root naturally, the way pigs are meant
    to.
        We strongly oppose the EATS Act. This legislation would wipe out
    state-level standards like California's Proposition 12, which simply
    ensures that animals have enough space to turn around. These are
    commonsense, humane standards that reflect what consumers want and what
    responsible farmers already provide.
        Prop 12 has opened up a real pathway for small and beginning
    farmers to enter the hog industry--an industry that has largely been
    taken over by large-scale, corporate-controlled operations. Without
    access to high-volume processing plants or industrial infrastructure,
    new farmers need niche markets like crate-free or pasture-raised pork
    to survive and grow. Prop 12 creates a demand for higher-welfare,
    specialty products that allow us to command a fair price and compete on
    values, not volume.
        Instead of being forced to conform to a system that favors
    consolidation and confinement, beginning farmers can carve out a future
    by raising animals in alignment with their ethics and the expectations
    of today's conscious consumers. These opportunities bring young people
    back to the land, support farm-based entrepreneurship, and revitalize
    rural communities through job creation and local investment.
        Prop 12 is a farmer-friendly law that's good for animals,
    consumers, and the future of agriculture. The EATS Act, on the other
    hand, would erase that progress and make it harder for farms like ours
    to compete with CAFOs that put profit over principle.
        Please support responsible farming and the right of states to set
    meaningful standards. Stand against the EATS Act, and uphold Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Trisha Zachman,
    Feathered Acres Farm,
    Belgrade, MN.

        Dear Committee Members,

        Prop 12 isn't radical; it's reasonable. As a family farmer, I know
    firsthand that giving animals enough space to move, turn around, and
    lie down isn't just humane, it's common sense. This law reflects how
    many of us already operate. Efforts like the EATS Act threaten to
    punish farms that choose to do better. Please reject it. And please
    preserve Prop 12 and laws like it.
                Sincerely,

    Zephyr Family Farm.

        To the Committee,

        At New Story Farm, we believe food should tell a better story, one
    rooted in compassion, sustainability, and integrity. Located in
    Hutchinson, MN, we raise our animals with care and respect,
    prioritizing their welfare, the health of our land, and the trust of
    the people who buy our food.
        We support Proposition 12 because it reflects values we live by
    every day: humane treatment of animals, transparency in agriculture,
    and the right of states to uphold higher standards. This law didn't
    appear overnight, it was passed by voters who demanded better. And it
    aligns with what more and more consumers are asking for: food produced
    without cruelty or confinement.
        The EATS Act would take us backwards. It would wipe out laws like
    Prop 12, silencing voters and stripping states of the right to set
    their own standards. Worse, it would give industrial factory farms even
    more power, at the expense of small-scale, ethical farms like ours.
        This isn't just a policy debate. It's a question of whether we
    reward producers who do the right thing or allow those who cut corners
    to dictate the future of farming.
        Please protect laws like Prop 12 and reject the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Daniel and Stephanie Zetah,
    New Story Farm, MN.
                                     dated
    March 2024

        Dear Senator/Representative:

        On behalf of Massachusetts' family farms, we're writing to
    respectfully request your help in stopping legislation that would harm
    Massachusetts and our communities.
        In the past two farm bill debates, hundreds of farmers spoke out
    against the highly controversial ``King amendment,'' a measure that
    could gut an array of state laws in Massachusetts and the rest of the
    country. The amendment, sought by former Representative Steve King, was
    fortunately kept out of the final 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, but now
    some industrial CAFO lobbyists are pushing for the Ending Agricultural
    Trade Suppression (EATS) Act (S. 2019/H.R. 4417) or other similar
    legislation also modeled after Rep. King's legislation, to be included
    in this year's farm bill. We urge you to oppose the EATS Act and any
    measure intended to undermine state or local agricultural laws.
        States and localities should continue to have the right to set
    standards on agricultural products sold within their borders. These
    standards prevent a race to the bottom when it comes to pollution, food
    safety, animal welfare, and public health. Massachusetts' farmers have
    invested significant amounts of time and money to comply with state
    laws in Massachusetts and in other domestic markets, and the EATS Act
    would pull the rug out from under us.
        Please ensure that neither the EATS Act nor any similar attack on
    state and local agricultural laws is included in the farm bill. Thank
    you for your time and consideration.
                Sincerely,

    Full Well Farm, Adams                Ellison Farms Beef, Ludlow
    Ancient Ponies Farm, Amherst         Pine Meadow Alpacas, Mattapoisett
    Carrot Corner Farm, Amherst          Mann Orchards Inc., Methuen
    Sunset Farm, Amherst                 Thatcher Farm, Milton
    Hames & Axle Farm, Ashburnham        Falls Farm LLC, Montague
    Silver Oak Farm, Ashby               Positively Goats, Natick
    Bloom Woolen Yarns, Ashfield         Walker Farm at Whortleberry Hill,
                                          New Braintree
    Bug Hill Farm, Ashfield              Angel Hair Alpaca Farm, North
                                          Grafton
    Growing a Bunch Farm, Ashfield       Abundance Farm, Northampton
    Sweet Birch Herbals, Ashfield        Cider Crossing Farm, Northfield
    Whitney Acres Farm, Ashfield         Crooked Trail Farm, Orange
    Happy Hollow Farm, Barre             Emma's Acres Alpacas, Oxford
    Many Hands Organic Farm, Barre       Oxford Farms, Oxford
    Mindful Garden Farm, Barre           Golden Rule Farm, Plymouth
    White Rabbit Farm, Barre             Colchester Farm, Plympton
    Grown Up Farm, Belchertown           A Mire Farm, Rehoboth
    Phoenix Fruit Farm, Belchertown      Rosasharn Farm, Rehoboth
    Sentinel Farm, Belchertown           Lanzoni's, Rochester
    Heart Beets Farm, Berkley            Cream of the Crop Farm, Russell
    Balance Rock Farm, Berlin            Dragon Tree Farm, Savoy
    Eden Trail Farm, Bernardston         Seven Arrows Farm, Seekonk
    Daniels Farmstead, Blackstone        Taylor Girls Farmstead, Sharon
    Fiddlers Blue Farm, Bolton           Moon in the Pond Farm, Sheffield
    Greenleaf Farm, Brockton             Sky View Farm, Sheffield
    Bent Birch Farm, Brookfield          Hopestill Farm, Sherborn
    Allandale Farm Inc., Brookline       Lightning Ridge Farm, Sherborn
    Bay End Farm, Buzzards Bay           Warm Colors Apiary, South Deerfield
    Edgewood Cranberries, Carver         The Bitty Red Barn, Southampton
    Fresh Meadows Farm, Carver           K E Farm Maple Products,
                                          Southbridge
    Wilder Brook Farm, Charlemont        Meadow View Farm., Southwick
    Kelso Homestead Farm, Chester        Gardening The Community (GTC),
                                          Springfield
    Bare Roots Farm, Chesterfield        Sixteen Acres Garden Center,
                                          Springfield
    Native Earth Teaching Farm,          Springfield Food Policy Council
     Chilmark                             (SFPC), Springfield
    The Grey Barn and Farm, Chilmark     Pineo Family Farm, Sterling
    Black Thistle Farm, Clinton          Sagatabscot Orchards, Sterling
    K & L Organic Growers, Colrain       White Pond Farm, Stow
    Jordan Farm, Dartmouth               Little Brook Farm, Sunderland
    River Bard Farm, Deerfield           Spring Rain Farm, Taunton
    Riddle Brook Farm, Douglas           Longnook Meadows Farm, Truro
    Dunlap Farm, Dracut                  Bear Hill Farm, Tyngsborough
    Farmer Tim's Vegetables, Dudley      Chockalog Farm, Uxbridge
    Beaver Brook Farm, East Bridgewater  Ironstone Farm, Uxbridge
    Rhineland Acres Farm, East           Chase Hill Farm, Warwick
     Bridgewater
    Coonamessett Farm, East Falmouth     Wareham Quail Farm, West Wareham
    Chicoine Family Farm, Easthampton    Emery Family Farm, Westborough
    Upinngil, Gill                       Yellow Stonehouse Farm, Westfield
    Mountain Orchard LLC, Granville      Outlook Farm, Westhampton
    Golden Egg Farm, Hardwick            Wind Eagle Farm, Westminster
    Harvard Alpaca Ranch, Harvard        Aeonian Farm, Westport
    Flora Farm, Haydenville              Allen Farms, Westport
    The Benson Place, Heath              C Ledoux Wood Farm, Westport
    Happy Goats Farm, Holliston          Ferry Farm, Westport
    Flor Farm, Holyoke                   Skinny Dip Farm, Westport
    Nuestras Raices, Inc., Holyoke       Stonehaven Farm, Westport
    Long Life Farm, Hopkinton            Sweet Goat Farm, Westport
    Ladybug Farm Produce, Hubbardston    Lombrico Farm, Whately
    Hillside Herbals, Jefferson          Quonquont Farm, Whately
    DragonWing Farm, Lanesborough        Dufresne's Sugar House,
                                          Williamsburg
    Red Shirt Farm, Lanesborough         North Wind Farm, Winchendon
    The Farm at the Winthrop Estate,     Shared Harvest Winter CSA,
     Lenox                                Winchester
    Dancing Bear Farm, Leyden            Hilltown Market, Worthington
    Good Bunch Farm, Lincoln             Justamere Tree Farm, Worthington
    Raja Farms, Lincoln

    June 9, 2025

    Hon. John Boozman,                   Hon. Glenn Thompson,
    Chairman,                            Chairman,
    Senate Committee on Agriculture,     House Committee on Agriculture,
     Nutrition, and Forestry,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.;

    Hon. Amy Klobuchar,                  Hon. Angie Craig,
    Ranking Minority Member,             Ranking Minority Member,
    Senate Committee on Agriculture,     House Committee on Agriculture,
     Nutrition, and Forestry,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Boozman, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Klobuchar,
    and Ranking Member Craig:

        We write to you today to discuss the pressing attack on common-
    sense animal welfare regulations.
        Currently, a small group of Congressmembers is attempting to push a
    piece of legislation called the Food Security and Farm Protection Act
    (S. 1326) a renamed version of the Ending Agricultural Trade
    Suppression (EATS) Act (S. 2019, H.R. 4417) introduced in the 119th
    Congress.
        If passed, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (formally
    known as the EATS Act) would eliminate virtually all state and local
    legislative powers to impose standards or conditions on the ``pre-
    harvest'' production of agricultural products entering their own
    borders. This includes regulations related to food safety, disease and
    pest control, and government procurement.\1\ In doing so, the Act would
    overturn California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3, two
    state laws that require farm animals to be raised without cruelty and
    ban the sale of pork, eggs, and veal that don't comply with certain
    animal welfare laws.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ McGill, K., Linder, A., & Eberly, K. (Green, C. Ed.). (2023).
    Legislative analysis of S. 2019/H.R. 4417: The ``Ending Agricultural
    Trade Suppression Act.'' Harvard Law School, Brooks McCormick, Jr.
    Animal Law & Policy Program. https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/
    uploads/Harvard-ALPP-EATS-Act-Report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The provisions in the Food Security and Farm Protection Act are not
    new: In fact, similar versions of this bill have been introduced 5+
    times--and met with uproar and strong opposition from a diverse set of
    more than 5,000+ groups, including American farmers, consumers, and
    businesses.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Diverse Opponents of the EATS Act.'' (n.d.). Retrieved April
    18, 2025, from https://docs.google.com/document/d/
    1eQgmpVGKskImh1NlPukUXDO76DS55CaJ/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This attempt should be treated similarly: We, the undersigned
    companies, strongly urge you to oppose the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act and any of its iterations for the following reasons:
    1. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act Counters Consumer Demand
            for Common-Sense Production Standards
       California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3
            were passed overwhelmingly by voters in the 2018 and 2016
            elections, respectively. Specifically, 63% of California
            residents voted in favor of Proposition 12 and 78% of residents
            voted in favor of Massachusetts' Question 3.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Makovec, A. (2024, April 2). U.S. farm bill on track to
    invalidate the will of California voters. CBS News Bay Area. https://
    www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/u-s-farm-bill-on-track-to-invalidate-
    the-will-of-california-voters/; The New York Times. (2017, August 1).
    Massachusetts question 3_minimum size requirements for farm animal
    containment_results: Approved. The New York Times. https://
    www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/massachusetts-ballot-measure-3-
    improve-farm-animal-confines.

       These state ballot measure results are just one example of
            the growing consumer demand for products made with common-sense
            animal welfare standards aligned with their expectations and
            values. A recent study revealed that 80% of Americans are
            concerned about the negative impacts of industrial animal
            agriculture on animal welfare, second only to their concern
            about its effect on public and community health.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
    (2023). 2023 industrial animal agriculture opinion survey. https://
    www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/2023_industrial_ag_sur
    vey_results_report_052523_1.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act Would Reverse Progress and
            Investments in Animal Welfare
       The Food Security and Farm Protection Act is a direct
            response to recent legal and legislative success in the animal
            welfare industry. If passed, the Food Security and Farm
            Protection Act would overturn laws that require veal calves,
            breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens to be housed according to
            specific standards for freedom of movement, cage-free design,
            and minimum floor space, and that prohibit a farm owner or
            operator from knowingly confining specific animals in a cruel
            manner.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ California Department of Education, Nutrition Services
    Division. (2022, October). Proposition 12--Farm animal confinement
    (Management Bulletin FDP-03-2022). https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/fd/mb-
    fdp-03-2022-a.asp.

       Under the ruse of ``protecting farmers from costly
            regulations,'' the Food Security and Farm Protection Act would
            reverse major progress in humane farming practices, and it
            would harm farmers that have already taken steps and made
            investments in order to become Proposition 12-certified. For
            example, the egg industry is now around 40% cage-free, and more
            than 1,250 pork producers and distributors are Proposition 12-
            compliant.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ United Egg Producers. (2025). Facts & Stats. https://
    unitedegg.com/facts-stats/; Miller, C.J. (2024, January 4). Over 1,250
    producers in compliance under California's Prop 12. Hoosier Ag Today.
    https://www.hoosieragtoday.com/2024/01/04/over-1250-producers-
    compliant-prop-12/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act Threatens the Balance of
            Power in U.S. Government
       The Food Security and Farm Protection Act aims to erode the
            long-standing ability of state and local authorities to set
            agricultural regulations within their borders, and it threatens
            to undermine states' ability to pass laws and ballot measures
            related to food safety, disease and pest control, and other
            public health and welfare matters.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ McGill, K., Linder, A., & Eberly, K. (Green, C. Ed.). (2023).
    Legislative analysis of S. 2019/H.R. 4417: The ``Ending Agricultural
    Trade Suppression Act.'' Harvard Law School, Brooks McCormick, Jr.
    Animal Law & Policy Program. https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/
    uploads/Harvard-ALPP-EATS-Act-Report.pdf.

       In 2023, the Supreme Court held that the regulatory
            structure outlined in California's Proposition 12 was
            constitutional. The court ruled that the state could establish
            its own rules on meat sold in the state, even if that means
            that products produced outside of the state must comply with
            the law. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act--if passed--
            would thus not only overturn voter-affirmed laws in multiple
            states but would also run afoul of U.S. Supreme Court
            precedent.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ McGill, K., Linder, A., & Eberly, K. (Green, C. Ed.). (2023).
    Legislative analysis of S. 2019/H.R. 4417: The ``Ending Agricultural
    Trade Suppression Act.'' Harvard Law School, Brooks McCormick, Jr.
    Animal Law & Policy Program. https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/
    uploads/Harvard-ALPP-EATS-Act-Report.pdf.

        While some companies remain silent in the name of cheaper
    production costs, we believe it is our responsibility to amplify the
    concerns of our customers and business partners through our platforms.
    As organizations with a direct impact on the U.S. food system, we must
    never prioritize profit over the people, animals, and planet who
    produce our food.
        We, the undersigned companies, are proud to join forces with our
    brave colleagues in farming in calling on Congress to reject the Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act. We hope that you will listen to the
    voice of American businesses, American farmers, and the American public
    and avoid reversing animal welfare advancements and disrupting the
    state-Federal equilibrium of the U.S. Government.
        Thank you for your time and consideration. We welcome the
    opportunity to collaborate with you on this important issue.
                Sincerely,

    Mike Salguero, Founder & CEO         Hungryroot
     ButcherBox
    Watertown, MA                        New York, NY
    Actual Veggies                       Kipster
    Miami, FL                            North Manchester, IN
    Applegate                            Natural Grocers
    Bedminster, NJ                       Lakewood, CO
    Bon Appetit Management Company       Niman Ranch
    Redwood Shores, CA                   Westminster, CO
    Boulder Organics                     North Country Smokehouse
    Louisville, CO                       Claremont, NH
    Campfire Treats                      Open Farm
    Rocklin, CA                          Dover, Delaware
    Coleman Natural Foods                ParsleyPet
    Westminster, CO                      Kyle, TX
    Crowd Cow                            Perdue Foods
    Seattle, WA                          Salisbury, MD
    duBreton USA                         Solutions Pet Products
    Claremont, NH                        Littleton, CO
    Earth Animal                         Thrive Market
    Southport, CT; Westminster, MD       Los Angeles, CA
    Grass Roots Farmers' Co-op           True Story Foods
    Leslie, AR                           Fairfield, CA
    Handsome Brook Farms                 White Oak Pastures
    New York City, NY                    Bluffton, GA
    Happy Valley Meat Company            Whole30
    Brooklyn, NY                         Salt Lake City, UT
    Hickory Nut Gap Farm LLC             Wild Nosh Pets
    Fairview, NC                         Lafayette, CO
    Home Place Pastures
    Como, MS

    July 16, 2025
        Dear House Agriculture Committee Member,

        Coleman All Natural Meats is the largest supplier of no antibiotics
    ever, humanely raised, fresh and processed pork in the country, a
    natural foods pioneer since 1875. We are writing today to express our
    opposition to the Food Security and Farm Protection Act--formerly the
    EATS Act--and any legislation that would roll back California's
    Proposition 12 or Massachusetts' Question 3. Such a move would have
    significant consequences for our company and network of pork producers
    across eight states raising crate-free pigs.
        All our pork suppliers made the choice to convert their operations
    to be Proposition 12-certified. That was not an easy decision. It meant
    a significant financial investment--an investment made in good faith
    based on the passage of this state law by a vote of the people that was
    upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. They took on this challenge because
    it opened new market opportunities. We pay a healthy premium for every
    Prop 12-compliant pig our farmers supply.
        Many Coleman farmers have shared that their operations have
    improved after conversion, with better production results and lower
    stress for people and pigs. Any legislation that eliminates Prop 12 and
    Question 3 would pull the rug out from under these farmers, putting
    these investments--and their farms--at risk.
        Prop 12 has been a welcome opportunity for our supplier farms. No
    farm or business is being forced to participate in the California
    market. Producers that choose to meet Prop 12 standards do so because
    they see it as an opportunity to tap into a more premium, stable
    market. Prop 12 gave farmers an open door to those willing to innovate.
        Despite what some industry voices are claiming, Prop 12 has not
    caused widespread disruption in the marketplace. It went into full
    effect in January 2024, and pork is still flowing to California stores
    today. Price fluctuations have moderated as the market has evolved. The
    only uncertainty that remains is not driven by Prop 12, but by the
    threat of Federal legislation that would override the law.
        If enacted, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act/EATS Act (or
    any legislation like it) would invalidate the good-faith efforts of our
    farmers and penalize companies like ours that chose to lead.
        We respectfully urge you to reject the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, the EATS Act and any legislation that would rollback
    Prop 12 or Question 3. We would welcome the opportunity to speak with
    you further about how Prop 12 is working in practice--and what's really
    at stake for our company and family farmers in our network.
                Sincerely,

    Mel Coleman, Jr.,
    Vice President,
    Coleman Natural Meats.
    July 17, 2025
        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        I am writing as a pork producer who has successfully transitioned
    to be Proposition 12 compliant. We are a third generation family farm
    with 50 employees and eight contract grower family farms. We produce
    100,000 market hogs per year. We supply our pigs to Perdue for its
    Coleman Natural brand. Perdue feels like a partner; it is family owned,
    U.S. owned and focused on quality. Switching from commodity to crate-
    free and Prop 12 compliant was better for us financially, better for
    the welfare of the animals and better for our employees.
        The main reason we converted our operation from a conventional
    commodity model to the more value-added premium market is we felt there
    was an inevitable push of consolidation by large agribusiness, and
    their model is least cost driven. Farms that supply to them are
    squeezed for more pigs at cheaper price--that's it. This is not a bad
    thing to get more efficient and be a least cost producer, however you
    will see more and more consolidation until only the largest
    multinational industry players are left. I do not believe this
    consolidation is in the best interest for my family's farm or rural
    communities.
        Transitioning to crate-free has benefited our operation. We have
    seen unchanged production numbers--from conception rate to weaned pigs
    per litter. It does take a slightly different workforce focused on
    animal husbandry and more tech savvy. While there were up-front
    investments made and we have slightly reduced the number of sows per
    barn, the ultimate cost to our operation has been slight, an estimated
    3%. We more than make up for this cost in the premium we are paid to
    serve California and other crate-free, natural markets.
        We urge you to maintain Proposition 12 to support family farms like
    mine. The pork industry is not united on this issue. As time has
    passed, farmers and others in the industry have seen that the law
    merely creates opportunity to those who are interested in a higher
    premium market and those who are not interested can continue business
    as usual. Prop 12, although imperfect like many laws, was voted on by
    the voters of a state by significant margin, it was upheld by the
    Supreme Court and farmers have invested and adapted to the law to the
    betterment of their animals and employees. To change the law now would
    cause unnecessary instability in the marketplace and punish those of us
    who invested in our farms.
        I am happy to provide additional information or discuss my
    experience further.
                Sincerely,

    Jared Schilling,
    KJMM Pork and Grain,
    New Athens, IL.
    July 18, 2025
        Dear House Agriculture Committee Member,

        We write to you as a fourth-generation, family-owned U.S. food and
    agriculture company to express our support for California's Proposition
    12, the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act. We respectfully ask
    for your opposition to efforts that would overturn Prop 12. Proposition
    12 is important progress for both animal welfare and American farmers
    and if rolled back, would have an immediate negative impact on not just
    livestock but also our company's network of Proposition 12-certified
    hog farmer suppliers.
        Now in our second century, Perdue Farms has long recognized the
    importance of humane animal care. Our vision is ``to be the most
    trusted name in food and agricultural producer.'' That trust extends to
    our animal care and welfare commitments, and through our ``Commitments
    to Animal Care'' \1\ * we embrace our responsibility to ensure animals
    are treated with dignity and respect.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://corporate.perduefarms.com/responsibility/animal-care/
    commitments/.
        * Editor's note: a website snapshot has been taken, and the
    underlying report, Perdue Farms 2024 Animal Care Report, are both
    retained in Committee file.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our dedication to animal welfare is further demonstrated by our
    ownership of Niman Ranch and Coleman Natural Foods. Both brands are
    pioneers in producing crate-free pork, adhering to stringent animal
    welfare standards that exceed industry norms. Together, Niman Ranch and
    Coleman Natural partner with over 530 crate-free hog farmers across 16
    states.
        We continue to listen--and respond--to consumers, customers and
    other stakeholders, continuously innovating and improving in what we
    produce and what we do. Like many other pork producers across the
    country, some of our partner farms have put significant time and
    resources into building new barns or retrofitting old facilities to
    become Proposition 12-certified. We have supported our farmer network
    in this pursuit.
        California's Prop 12 law has opened new markets for Niman Ranch and
    Coleman Natural farmers, helping the pork industry and rural
    communities throughout the country. To abruptly require farmers to
    change course by reversing Proposition 12 would create instability in
    the industry and harm farmers that have made investments to participate
    in the California marketplace.
        We believe the Proposition 12 standards for pork are consistent
    with the evolving expectations of consumers and reflect a growing
    understanding of animal welfare best practices. While we acknowledge
    the challenges associated with implementing new regulations, we also
    recognize the importance of innovation in business and of states
    serving as laboratories of democracy. We are committed to working with
    stakeholders, including producers, retailers and policymakers to
    support the continuation of Proposition 12.
        Thank you for your consideration of our position. We are available
    to answer any questions you may have.
                Sincerely,

    Herb Frerichs,
    General Counsel,
    Perdue Farms.

      Hon. Angie Craig,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. James P. McGovern
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C. 20515

        Dear Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern,

        My name is Brent Hershey, and I'm a pork producer from Marietta,
    Pennsylvania. I own and operate Hershey Ag, where I've raised around
    3,000 breeding sows and tens of thousands of market hogs each year for
    about 40 years.
        I'm writing to raise my voice my strong opposition to the EATS
    Act--a radical proposal that would devastate my business and family
    farmers across the country.
        For most of my career, I did things the way the industry told me
    to. That included confining mother pigs inside gestation crates--metal
    cages barely larger than the pig's own body. A mother pig confined this
    way cannot walk or turn around during her 4 month pregnancy. After
    nursing her piglets, she's returned to the crate, repeating this cycle
    for years.
        Dr. Temple Grandin, an inductee in the Meat Industry Hall of Fame
    and arguably the most respected animal scientist in the history of our
    country, put it bluntly: ``Gestation crates for pigs are a real problem
    . . . I think it's something that needs to be phased out.''
        I used to defend crates, assuming they were necessary. But over
    time, I began to question the ethics and economics of it. I visited
    farms using group housing--where pigs could move--and saw a better way.
        When California's Prop 12 was upheld by the Supreme Court, I
    decided to remove every gestation crate from my operation. Now my sows
    live in open pens with room to move freely--and our results speak for
    themselves. Our animals are healthier. Productivity has improved. My
    workers are more engaged, able to practice real husbandry. Morale on
    the farm has never been higher.
        Prop 12 and Massachusetts' law set basic, very modest humane
    standards for pork sold in those states--ensuring pigs can stand up,
    lie down, and turn around. These laws took effect in 2022. Remember the
    fearmongering about ``bacon shortages''? It never happened. Three years
    in, the supply chain remains strong and steady.
        Even the President of the Iowa Pork Producers Association recently
    acknowledged there's now ``been enough production change to meet Prop
    12 demand,'' and producers who don't want to comply ``really don't have
    to.''
        It's a choice--one many of us made--and we've been rewarded with
    access to new markets.
        But the EATS Act threatens to unravel it all.
        Farmers like me built new business models around these standards.
    We signed contracts. We invested in infrastructure. If EATS passes, all
    of that gets wiped out. It would financially devastate my company and,
    for consumers, throw supply chains into chaos.
        This may be a windfall for those pushing for greater
    consolidation--but for independent American family farmers, it's
    nothing short of an existential threat to our livelihood.
        I heard strange claims that these laws raise pork prices
    nationally. As a farmer who tracks every penny, I can tell you: feed,
    fuel, and labor costs are what's driving prices. Not animal welfare
    standards in two states.
        Let's also be honest about where this industry is heading.
    Consumers overwhelmingly oppose the use of gestation crates. Over 60
    major food companies--McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Costco, Kroger,
    Safeway, IHOP, and many more--are moving away from crate pork. They
    know it's a practice they can't defend to their customers.
        And here's the hard truth: there's a civil war in the pork industry
    right now. Not between farmers and consumers--but between NPPC
    leadership and many of us farmers on the ground. While they lobby for
    the EATS Act in Washington, we're out here doing the work--adapting,
    improving welfare, and thriving in markets that reward it. Their
    actions don't protect us. They jeopardize everything we've built.
        I used to defend confining pigs in tiny cages. But I've changed.
    And I have proven we can have a strong, profitable pork industry
    without relying on practices the public rejects. Roughly \1/2\ of U.S.
    pork already comes from farms using group housing--and that number is
    growing. See my YouTube . . . search ``Brent Hershey Prop 12
    Successes''.
        So I urge you: reject the EATS Act. Don't overturn the voter-
    approved standards in California and Massachusetts. Don't destroy the
    market that's helping farmers like me succeed while treating animals
    with decency.
        Instead, let's move forward. Support innovation. Support
    independent farmers over more consolidation. Let's build an industry
    that respects both people and animals.
        Thank you for listening. I'd be honored to answer any questions you
    have.
                Sincerely,

    Brent Hershey, Hershey Ag.

        Dear Representative Craig,

        I am writing to you as a fifth generation farmer from Le Sueur, MN.
    There have been many changes as our family's diversified farm has
    adapted to challenges and pursued opportunities. One stabilizing
    component has always been livestock, namely, hogs.
        I am writing to share our farm's concern over efforts to roll back
    Proposition 12.
        For the past 25 years my brother and I have raised livestock for
    the Niman Ranch pork company. As farrow to finish hog farmers, this
    market opportunity has allowed us to continue to raise pigs profitably
    by responding to evolving and increasing consumer demand for pork
    raised in conditions that do not confine gestating sows for the
    entirety of their piglet producing lives.
        Our farm had an opportunity to adopt the confinement system when
    the commodity pork model began to transform and impoverish the
    independent hog farmer system in the 1970's. Our parents rejected that
    for the same reasons my brother and I do now. The conditions in which
    sows are raised matter; the improved health and longevity of sows on a
    farm related to the lower stress in non crate systems matters; and
    raising pigs in a manner that aligns with our animal husbandry values
    and consumer values tied to animal welfare, matters.
        As a Proposition 12 certified hog farm in MN CD 2, it matters to us
    that markets like Niman Ranch who pay us a fair price for the pigs we
    raise in non crate systems continue to respond to increased consumer
    demand. The ability of states like California to pass laws like Prop 12
    will only make these markets more robust and responsive to consumer
    preference, and also result in a more equitable sharing of the consumer
    dollar with independent hog farmers like us.
        We thank you for your leadership in MN CD 2, and ask that you use
    your power as CD 2 representative and Agriculture Committee Member to
    oppose and vote against legislation that would restrict California's
    Proposition 12.
                Sincerely,

    Tom Nuessmeier,
    Nuessmeier Brothers LLC.

        Dear House Agriculture Committee Member,

        On behalf of Niman Ranch, a network of over 600 independent family
    farmers and ranchers, I write to express strong opposition to efforts
    to overturn California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3
    including the highly controversial Food Security and Farm Protection
    Act. This proposed legislation threatens to undermine states' rights,
    stifle agricultural innovation, harm farmers and rural communities and
    disregard the evolving preferences of American consumers.

        For decades, Niman Ranch has demonstrated that a market exists and
    thrives for humanely raised products. Our supplier network includes
    over 500 Prop 12-certified, crate-free hog farms spanning across 16
    states. Many of our farmers transitioned to crate-free hog farming to
    join Niman Ranch and have experienced firsthand the economic viability
    that humane practices can generate. We pay our farmers a stable premium
    and our business model has been proven to generate more jobs and
    economic value for rural farming communities.\1\ *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://nimanranch.com/press/small-farm-economic-impact-
    analysis/.
        * Editor's note: the press release, and the underlying report, The
    Economic Contribution of Niman Ranch Hog Production in Iowa, are both
    retained in Committee file.

        State initiatives like California's Proposition 12 and
    Massachusetts' Question 3 are not burdens but catalysts for positive
    change, creating a stable, premium market opportunity for farmers who
    invest in specialized production practices. Prop 12 does not force any
    pork company or out of state farm to convert their operation or sell
    into California. The argument that Prop 12 will hurt small farmers or
    lead to consolidation is counter to our experience as a company.
        The Food Security and Farm Protection Act represents a dangerous
    Federal overreach of states' authority to establish agricultural
    standards that reflect the values and demands of their citizens. By
    attempting to invalidate state laws concerning agricultural production
    methods, the proposed legislation would:

       Undermine States' Rights and Local Control: It would strip
            states of their constitutional authority to regulate commerce
            within their borders and protect their citizens' interests,
            setting a concerning precedent for Federal interference in
            diverse state economies.

       Harm Farmers and Disrupt a Stable Market: Farmers who have
            already invested significant capital and effort to meet crate-
            free standards would be unfairly penalized. Rolling back Prop
            12 would destabilize markets that are already responding to
            consumer preferences and local laws, creating uncertainty and
            potentially devaluing existing investments in farm
            infrastructure. We are over 18 months into full implementation
            of Prop 12; the industry has adapted, and the market has
            stabilized. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act would
            create instability, spur further lawsuits and hurt our business
            and farmer network along with other crate-free producers.

       Stifle Innovation and Progress: By imposing a lowest-common-
            denominator standard, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act
            would discourage the very innovation and investment that
            forward-thinking farmers are embracing. It would send a clear
            message that Federal policymakers prioritize industrial models
            over diversified, sustainable and humane agricultural systems
            that are gaining traction and supporting a resilient rural
            America.

        Niman Ranch believes in a robust agricultural system that respects
    farmers' autonomy, responds to market signals and state laws and
    upholds the principles of animal welfare. We do not see these values in
    conflict--in fact, we strongly believe by focusing on all these factors
    we will build a stronger, more resilient pork industry.
        Respectfully, we urge you to consider the detrimental impacts of
    the Food Security and Farm Protection Act on states' rights, farmer
    livelihoods and rural opportunities.
                Sincerely,

    Paul Willis
    Founding Hog Farmer,
    Niman Ranch.
    July 19, 2025
        Aloha,

        My husband and I have been farming in Hawai`i since 1978, and we
    grow a variety of fruits and vegetables. We understand the long history
    of the rules and regulations that have developed locally in Hawai`i to
    protect the safety of our food system.
        The central aim of the EATS Act remains the same: to federally
    overrule Prop 12 and similar state and local health, safety, and
    welfare laws. By doing so this will have dire consequences for the
    safety and the health of the nation's food supply which is already at
    risk due to the labor shortage.
        We urge you not to pass this Bill.
                Mahalo,

    Nancy Redfeather and Gerry Herbert,
    Kawanui Farm, Hawai`i.
    July 20, 2025
        Dear Congresswoman Craig and Members of the Committee:

        I'm Elizabeth ``Liz'' Townsend, owner of Berried Delights, a small,
    family-run berry farm and jam/jelly kitchen in Newcastle, Wyoming. I,
    with the help of my family, grow and harvest berries, rhubarb, and wild
    grown fruits. These products are then used to create jams, jellies,
    fruit syrups, etc., which are then sold to local markets.
        Proposition 12 creates a market for food raised with integrity.
    Consumers want to support farms and businesses that reflect their
    values, and Proposition 12 ensures they can.
        I've seen too many good farms fold under pressure from industrial
    competition that refuses to play fair. Laws such as Proposition 12
    protect the future of farming that feeds communities, not corporations.
        Please preserve Proposition 12, it is critical for responsible
    farmers and rural communities.
                Sincerely,

    Elizabeth Townsend,
    Berried Delights,
    Newcastle, Wyoming.
    July 21, 2025
        To the Committee,

        At the Hamakua Chocolate Farm in Hawaii, we cultivate cacao trees
    to produce fine chocolate with care for the land and the ecosystem. Our
    work reflects Hawaii's unique agricultural heritage and the power of
    regional food systems. Our work is rooted in respect for nature,
    responsible stewardship, and transparency--values shared by many small
    farms across the country and reflected in California's Proposition 12.
        We write today in strong support of Proposition 12, and in
    opposition to any effort to repeal or override it.
        Though we do not raise animals ourselves, we stand in solidarity
    with farmers who prioritize ethical and sustainable practices,
    including those who ensure animals have the space to move freely and
    live in conditions that reflect basic decency. Proposition 12 affirms
    that principle. It doesn't impose anything radical--it simply sets
    minimum welfare standards that align with what many conscientious
    farmers already do.
        This law was democratically passed by voters and implemented with a
    generous timeline. It supports consumer trust, marketplace fairness,
    and a more transparent food system. To override it now would undermine
    state rights, consumer expectations, and the leadership of farmers who
    have chosen a better way to work with the land.
        We respectfully urge you to protect Proposition 12 and uphold the
    values of integrity, sustainability, and respect that guide our work--
    and the work of so many across the country.
        With aloha,
                Sincerely,

    Dan Corson,
    Hamakua Chocolate Farm,
    Hawaii.

    Hon. Glenn Thompson,                 Hon. Angie Craig,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
    House Agriculture Committee,         House Agriculture Committee,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chair Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:

        As a producer myself, I understand the importance of controlling
    costs. However, as someone who sells products both through distribution
    and directly to individual customers, I know that my product must
    remain competitive--meaning it has to be both desirable and reliable if
    I want to maintain their support. It's a relationship built on trust
    and dependability. What they expect from me is a product that is both
    cutting-edge and dependable.
        The kind of innovation and skill that creates my product is
    unlikely to come from a top-down directive or bureaucratic mandate, but
    rather from the efforts of individual producers to meet marketplace
    demands.
        In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12 with a nearly \2/
    3\ majority vote. This law sets very basic animal health and welfare
    standards for eggs, pork, and veal sold within our state. Essentially,
    the electorate laid out a challenge to the producers, demanding that
    they meet the marketplace's demand. The producers of California met
    that challenge and often exceeded it.
        Currently, there is an ongoing discussion, partly driven by
    concerns that some may fall behind. Please put their concerns into
    proper perspective and avoid suppressing the efforts of producers who
    are doing their best to meet marketplace demands. This is not the way
    to foster a thriving, healthy, and more resilient agriculture and food
    system.
                Sincerely

    George R. Davis,
    Porter Creek Vineyards, Partner,
    California Farmers Union, President.

        To the Committee,

        At Dew Dance Farm in Sanford, North Carolina, we raise heritage
    breeds and grow crops using sustainable methods. While we don't sell
    meat, we care deeply about how animals are raised and treated, and we
    pass those values on through the educational programs we offer in fiber
    arts and farming.
        We oppose the EATS Act, in any form, because it erodes the ability
    of states to set ethical and sustainable standards. Laws like
    California's Proposition 12 are one example of how states can choose to
    reflect local values and support responsible farming. Local communities
    should have the freedom to shape food systems that reflect their
    values.
        Please reject the EATS Act and preserve the right of states to
    support responsible farming practices.
                Sincerely,

    Dew Dance Farm,
    Sanford, North Carolina.

        To the Committee,

        At Ashwood Acres in Abingdon, Virginia, we raise cattle, goats,
    sheep, pigs, chickens, and guardian dogs on our family farm. Our
    philosophy is deeply influenced by Joel Salatin and his vision of
    regenerative, transparent farming rooted in respect for the land, the
    animals, and the consumer.
        The EATS Act, and any rebranded version of it, is a direct threat
    to that vision. By overriding state-level standards like California's
    Prop 12, the Act gives more power to corporate agriculture and strips
    away the right of states to support ethical, independent producers.
        This legislation doesn't level the playing field. It tilts it
    further in favor of multinational consolidation, making it harder for
    farmers like us to compete fairly while staying true to our values.
        Please protect states' rights and farms that prioritize integrity.
    Please protect Prop 12 and laws like it, and oppose the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Ken Hassler,
    Ashwood Acres,
    Abingdon, Virginia.

        To the Committee,

        As someone who has grown produce in New Jersey, I've seen firsthand
    how important it is for states to have the authority to guide their own
    agricultural standards. Local food systems rely on that autonomy.
        The EATS Act, and any legislation that mimics it, takes that power
    away from states and hands it to corporate agriculture. That's not good
    for small producers, and it's not good for consumers. States like New
    Jersey and California have already passed laws, including Proposition
    12, that reflect the will of voters and promote more humane,
    transparent food systems. The EATS Act would erase those protections.
        Please protect state-level decision-making and reject attempts to
    dismantle laws like Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Ray Hofmann,
    Stoney Lane Farm,
    Lumberton, NJ.

        Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We are Lauren and Jeremy Jennings from Rose Hollow Farm. We are
    located on San Juan Island, Washington, a community that relies on
    small family farms. We raise sheep for both wool and meat, using
    rotational grazing and low-stress handling methods. We also raise goats
    for milk, meat, and breeding stock.
        As a family farmer, I support Proposition 12 because it promotes
    transparency and responsibility. Too often, markets are skewed in favor
    of industrial operators who sacrifice animal welfare and public health
    for efficiency. That's not how we do things on our farm.
        Prop 12 gives ethical producers a fighting chance. It's not about
    restricting commerce; it's about ensuring that those who farm the right
    way aren't edged out by those who exploit loopholes.
        Don't let the big players rewrite the rules. Keep Prop 12 in place,
    and stand with responsible, farmers like us.
                Thank you,

    Lauren and Jeremy Jennings,
    Rose Hollow Farm.

        At Koenigs' Acres Farm here in Hampton, Iowa (where we produce
    fruits and vegetables, chickens and turkeys, honey, jams and jellies),
    we've always believed that how an animal is raised matters--not just
    for the animal's sake, but for the quality of the food we feed our
    families and communities. We take pride in raising animals with care,
    letting them live naturally and without confinement. That's just good
    farming.
        That's why I support Prop 12. It sets a reasonable bar: animals
    raised for food should have enough space to stand up, lie down, and
    turn around. As farmers, we know that better treatment means healthier
    animals and higher-quality food. It's something more consumers are
    asking for, and it's something many of us are already doing.
        I'm deeply concerned about efforts to erase laws like Prop 12
    through the EATS Act or other measures. These are voter-backed laws
    that reflect what people want in their food system. Iowa may not have
    the same laws, but we should all have the right to make those choices
    at the state level without interference from big corporations or
    distant lobbyists.
        Please protect Prop 12 and the rights of farmers who are doing
    things right. Don't let shortsighted provisions undo the progress we're
    making toward a more ethical, transparent food system.
                Sincerely,

    Karen Koenig,
    Koenigs' Acres Farm,
    Hampton, Iowa.

        Members of the Committee,

        I represent Martha Owen Woolen. Everyone comes from a long line of
    farmers, I had to learn from the start when deciding to raise sheep
    chickens and rabbits. I believe that animals should be treated with
    decency and that the public deserves to support farms that do so.
        Proposition 12 is a standard that aligns with what many of us have
    been doing all along. It should not be weakened by Federal legislation
    designed to serve the lowest common denominator.
        Please protect the rights of states to set higher standards.
                Sincerely,

    Martha Owen.

        Dear House Agriculture Committee Member,

        I am writing regarding the House Agriculture Committee hearing on
    Prop 12 on Wednesday 7/23. I am a farmer based out of Redwood County
    Minnesota and for more than 20 years I raised crate-free pigs that I
    sold both locally through direct marketing and nationally through Niman
    Ranch. I appreciated and enjoyed raising pigs with a focus on quality
    and higher standards rather than just scale and quantity. The natural,
    crate-free market helped my family stay on the farm and support our
    local community.
        For farmers like me, who have invested in higher welfare practices,
    Prop 12 helped slightly level the playing field and better compete in
    an increasingly consolidated industry. Prop 12 created a valuable niche
    and encouraged the entire industry to innovate to better meet consumer
    demand for higher welfare products.
        While I retired from raising hogs in December of 2023, I can speak
    to the harms repealing Prop 12 would have on independent farms like
    mine throughout the district, state and beyond. If Prop 12 were rolled
    back, compliant farms would be harmed by losing an important market,
    and those who invested in barn conversions could potentially even put
    their farm at risk.
        I hope that you will attend the hearing on July 23, oppose efforts
    to repeal Prop 12, and share that your farmer constituents, like me,
    oppose the EATS Act and any attempts to overturn state laws. Local
    communities know what is best for them and should be able to pass laws
    protecting animal welfare, independent family farmers and consumers.
    Frankly, pork producer organizations should not be advocating against
    those independent livestock farmers who have built these specialized
    markets and offer the kind of pork products consumers have voted for
    and stated they want.
                Thank you for your consideration,

    Paul Sobocinski,
    Wabasso, MN.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Swazey Farms in New Jersey, our work with bees has taught us how
    delicate and interconnected life really is. Stewardship of animals,
    whether insects or livestock, requires respect, responsibility, and a
    willingness to evolve when we know better.
        That's why we support Proposition 12. Humane treatment of farm
    animals isn't just a California concern, it reflects values shared
    across states, including right here in New Jersey, where gestation
    crates are now banned. When voters and farmers come together to raise
    standards, it deserves support, not interference.
        Proposals like the EATS Act or similar provisions would erase state
    progress and silence the voices of those who believe better care for
    animals benefits everyone, from farmers to consumers to the animals
    themselves. Please stand with those who choose compassion and integrity
    in agriculture.
                Respectfully,

    Swazey Farms,
    New Jersey.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee:

        We're a small farm in Connecticut. Every seed we plant is rooted in
    care--for our community, our soil, and for the ethics behind how food
    is grown. That's why we support California's Proposition 12. It aligns
    with a vision of agriculture that's thoughtful and respectful. We don't
    see it as burdensome. We see it as necessary.
        Farmers like us don't want a race to the bottom. Laws like Prop 12
    raise the bar in a good way. Congress should reject efforts like the
    EATS Act and stand with the many farmers who know we can, and must, do
    better.
                Sincerely,

    Mary Ellen Vigeant,
    Down to Earth CSA Farm,
    Stafford Springs, CT.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee:

        As the owners of Wanda Farms, my wife and I are proud to raise
    animals with care, respect, and a commitment to humane treatment.
    Faith, family, and farm are at the heart of our vision, along with a
    deep sense of accountability and service to our own community. We
    produce pasture-raised pork, beef, poultry, and eggs in a way that
    reflects a simple philosophy: animals deserve to live a life as close
    to nature as possible. We treat our animals well, providing them with
    high-quality feed, access to pasture, and a free-range environment.
    These principles don't just yield superior products; they're the
    ethical backbone of our farm.
        Unfortunately, this way of farming is under threat. A proposed
    ``fix'' to Prop 12 and laws that set higher standards would be nothing
    short of a repeal of laws that promote humane treatment of animals and
    public health.
        Overwhelmingly approved by California voters in 2018, this law
    prohibits the sale of pork from pigs raised in intensive confinement.
    This measure, and a dozen other state laws like it in red, blue and
    purpose states, reflects voters' increasing demand for transparency in
    our food system and humane care of animals in agriculture. Congress
    should not override the voice of the people. Dismantling Prop 12 would
    strip states of the right to set their own agricultural standards. It's
    an anti-democratic move that undermines the will of voters and
    threatens to drag state and local governments into endless legal
    battles over nullifying carefully considered laws.
        If Congress rolls back Prop 12, farmers across the country will be
    plunged into regulatory chaos. Many producers have already made
    investments to meet or exceed welfare standards because they represent
    where farming is headed, not where it's been. Even the National Pork
    Producers Council has reported that over 40% of U.S. pork production
    already involves group housing for breeding pigs, rather than confining
    them in tiny cages for the majority of their lives.
        Prop 12 and laws like it are a step toward a future where American
    farming reflects the values of our society. These measures respect
    animals and consumers alike, recognizing that quality pork should come
    from pigs who were treated humanely. For Congress to intervene and
    negate this progress is to tell farmers and consumers that the way we
    raise food doesn't matter. But at Wanda Farms, we know that it does.
        We urge you to reject any attempt to gut Prop 12 and laws like it,
    and respect the progress that farmers, consumers, and voters have
    demanded, supported, and implemented.

    Joe Wanda,
    Wanda Farms.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We are a small, biodiverse farm in New Mexico built from the ground
    up with the intention of healing--land, food, community, and ourselves.
    We grow mushrooms, daffodils, and herbs using indigenous and
    permaculture practices. We farm without chemicals because we believe
    deeply in the interconnectedness of life.
        That's why we support Proposition 12.
        To us, it's a reflection of a worldview that says animals deserve
    space to move, breathe, and simply be. It affirms something many
    farmers already live by: that ethics and responsibility belong at the
    heart of agriculture.
        Federal proposals like the EATS Act would take a sledgehammer to
    that progress. They would undo the work voters, consumers, and farmers
    have done to build a more humane food system. We reject that.
        As parents raising two small kids on a farm, teaching them to care
    for creatures big and small, we believe what we model matters. Let's
    model care. Let's stand for dignity in food and farming. Let
    Proposition 12 stand.
                Sincerely,

    Wildhood Farm,
    New Mexico.
    July 22, 2025
        Dear Committee Members,

        As advocates for organic, sustainable agriculture in New Jersey,
    the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA-NJ)
    stands in strong support of California's Proposition 12. This law
    reflects core values shared by farmers, consumers, and communities who
    believe in humane treatment of animals and integrity in our food
    system.
        Here in New Jersey, we recently passed legislation banning the use
    of gestation crates and extreme confinement of pigs. That law is based
    on the understanding that such practices are incompatible with both
    animal welfare and the humane standards increasingly demanded by the
    public.
        California's Prop 12 is aligned with these same principles. It sets
    baseline expectations that food sold in the marketplace should not come
    at the cost of cruelty. Undermining these protections through Federal
    legislation like the EATS Act or similar proposals would override the
    will of voters and legislators in states across the country who have
    worked hard to advance meaningful reforms.
        We urge the Committee to reject any effort to preempt state animal
    welfare laws and to support Prop 12 as a model for responsible, values-
    based agriculture.
                Sincerely,

    Cali Alexander, H.O,
    Policy Chair,
    Board of Directors,
    Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA-NJ).

    In Defense of Proposition 12

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        At Amaltheia Dairy in Montana, we raise goats and pigs using
    practices that put animal welfare first. Our pigs live outdoors, with
    plenty of room to root and forage.
        Proposition 12 aligns with those values. It ensures the animals
    behind the food on grocery shelves are treated with basic dignity. It
    also helps farms like ours, who have invested in ethical, sustainable
    practices, find fair access to markets like California.
        To roll back this progress would send a message that big industry
    gets to write the rules, no matter what voters say. We urge the
    Committee to stand with responsible farmers and defend Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Amaltheia Dairy

        Dear Esteemed Members of the Committee,

        Ambling Ambystoma Farm is a certified organic farm (CCOF) located
    on the central California coast in Santa Cruz County, and is named for
    the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum).
        We support Proposition 12 wholeheartedly. Undoing Prop 12 sends the
    message that profit trumps principle. That isn't the future we want for
    American agriculture. Prop 12 is a baseline, not a burden. It gives
    conscientious producers the opportunity to thrive without being
    undercut by industrial shortcuts.
        Thank you for defending integrity in farming.

    Ambling Ambystoma Farm.

        To the Committee,

        At Sue's Blueberries in Portland, Oregon, we've built our farm on
    trust, quality, and a strong connection with the people who pick and
    eat our fruit. That connection depends on transparency and the ability
    of states to reflect local values in their food standards.
        The EATS Act and its rebranded version would take that power away--
    preempting state laws like Prop 12 and paving the way for centralized
    control by large agribusinesses. That's not the kind of future we want
    for farming.
        Please oppose this Federal overreach and support farmers and eaters
    who value integrity and choice.
                Sincerely,

    Susan Anderson,
    Sue's Blueberries,
    Portland, OR.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Avery Family Farm, our motto is ``bringing smiles and healing
    souls'' As a North Carolina farm, we support Proposition 12 because it
    acknowledges what many of us already know: how we treat animals matters
    to our customers, our land, and our communities. Any legislation that
    weakens Prop 12 undermines farmers who are trying to do better. We ask
    you to respect state rights and voter mandates. Reject the EATS Act and
    protect forward-thinking policies like Prop 12.
                Thank you.

    Avery Family Farm

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        We write to you from Beauregards Farm in Big Lake Township, Maine,
    where we grow fresh produce for our community with a focus on quality,
    care, and environmental responsibility. While we do not raise livestock
    ourselves, we support Proposition 12 because we believe in a food
    system where all farms, whether growing vegetables or raising animals,
    are held to basic standards of integrity, safety, and humane treatment.
        We work hard to grow food that reflects our values: stewardship of
    the land, care for the community, and respect for the living systems
    that sustain us. Prop 12 embodies those same principles. It sets
    minimum space standards for farm animals, ensuring they can turn
    around, lie down, and live without constant confinement. These are
    commonsense, baseline conditions that consumers widely support, and
    many farmers already meet.
        As produce farmers, we also understand the importance of public
    trust in our food system. Customers want to know their food is grown
    and raised responsibly. Prop 12 gives them that confidence. Prop 12 is
    a step toward a more just and transparent food system, something we
    believe benefits all producers, whether they grow vegetables or raise
    animals.
        We urge you to protect Proposition 12 and reject attempts to take
    this decision out of the hands of the states, the voters, and the
    farmers who are building something better.
                Sincerely,

    Beauregards Farm,
    Big Lake Township, ME.

        To the Members of the Committee,

        I'm a farmer from Stockholm, Wisconsin and I'm writing to express
    my strong opposition to the EATS Act or any other legislation that
    would weaken states' authority to regulate animal welfare and farming
    practices.
        My wife and I get approximately \1/3\ of our household income most
    years from producing and selling animal proteins (beef, eggs, and
    chicken), mainly direct-to-consumer. Over my lifetime, I have watched
    animal proteins across the board lose market share to so-called plant-
    based alternatives. I believe much of this shift has been driven by
    consumers' animal welfare concerns. Simply put, many people no longer
    trust the food industry to treat animals humanely and are choosing to
    eat less animal products as a result.
        States have taken steps to restore public trust by implementing
    reasonable, common sense animal welfare standards. Small- and mid-sized
    producers like me, who interact with our animals daily and care deeply
    about their well-being, stand ready to comply with these standards,
    because we understand that in the long run, restoring consumers' trust
    in their food will benefit farmers as much as it benefits animals and
    the public.
        Unfortunately, a handful of greedy corporate actors, driven by the
    logic of short-term cost-cutting, are pushing the EATS Act to shut down
    state-level regulation. What they don't seem to realize is that even if
    the regulations go away, the ethical concerns of shoppers are here to
    stay. State legislators are in the best position to understand those
    concerns and balance them with economic realities and the needs of
    producers in their region, and allowing thoughtfully crafted state
    regulations to stand is the best path forward for farmers and eaters.
    There is no need for Federal involvement in this issue.
                Sincerely,
    W. Geoffrey Black,
    Avodah Farm, LLC,
    Stockholm, WI.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        At R.G. Bees LLC in Beulah, Wyoming, we care for bees and
    contribute to the health of our food system through sustainable
    pollination. Bees are essential to life and so is the right of
    communities to govern their food and farming practices.
        We support laws, like California's Proposition 12, that are based
    on these same principles. Accordingly, we oppose the EATS Act, and any
    renamed version of it, because it overrides state authority and
    compromises the will of voters. Every state has unique ecosystems and
    values. They must retain the right to respond accordingly.
        Please reject attempts to roll back Prop 12 via the EATS Act or any
    other measure and stand up for states' rights and the small producers
    who support them.
                Sincerely,

    Renee Brunson,
    R.G. Bees LLC,
    Beulah, WY.

        Dear Committee Members,

        As a Pennsylvania farmer, I believe Proposition 12 represents an
    important step forward in ensuring the humane treatment of animals.
        Chairman Thompson now has the opportunity to listen to voices from
    his own state--voices of farmers who support Prop 12, who believe in
    better standards, and who don't want to see progress rolled back by
    sweeping proposals like the EATS Act.
        The marketplace is changing, and those of us who farm with care and
    intention are ready to meet that demand. Please defend Proposition 12
    and reject any efforts to override it.
                Sincerely,

    Matt Carter,
    Carter Farm,
    Pennsylvania.

        To the House Agriculture Committee,

        When people purchase products from our farm, they're not just
    buying food, they're placing trust in how we care for our land and the
    food they feed their families. Proposition 12 helps strengthen that
    trust by setting clear, reasonable standards that reflect what most
    consumers already expect: transparency, food safety, and responsible
    stewardship. As a farmer, I am proud to meet those standards.
        That is why I am deeply troubled by attempts to undo this positive
    progress. Bills like the EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act would undermine the ethical and sustainable practices
    that farmers like me have worked hard to uphold. They would strip away
    the ability of states to respond to their voters and rob consumers of
    the confidence they deserve.
        I urge you to protect Proposition 12 and stand with those of us
    committed to building a more transparent, trustworthy, and humane food
    system.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Nicholas Choate-Batchelder,
    Midnight Sun Farm,
    Illinois.

        Esteemed Members of the Commi4ee,

        As the owner of Tru Farm, a small farm in Florida, I believe
    Proposition 12 represents fair, commonsense standards that reflect what
    today's consumers are asking for. It ensures that farm animals have
    basic space to move and express natural behaviors. These aren't extreme
    measures; they're simple steps that align with the growing public
    demand for a food system that is both ethical and sustainable.
        Today's consumers want transparency. They want to know where their
    food comes from and expect it to be produced with care for animals, the
    environment, and public health. Proposition 12 promotes that
    transparency and supports food safety by encouraging better farming
    practices. Repealing it through Federal legislation would be a step
    backward. It would send a message that progress, consumer trust, and
    responsible farming don't matter. I urge you to protect Proposition 12
    and reject any attempt to dismantle it.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Chris Dawes

        Dear Committee Members,

        At EdenGreen, our microgreen farm in Idaho, we've built our model
    on care, precision, and sustainability. Urban farming teaches you to
    make the most of every inch--and to think deeply about the systems we
    depend on to grow food responsibly.
        That's why we support California's Proposition 12, and similar
    laws. These standards reflect a basic truth: how we treat animals
    matters, and policies should uphold humane, thoughtful practices in
    food production.
        Proposals like the EATS Act and other attempts to weaken Prop 12
    undermine the progress being made toward a more ethical and sustainable
    food system. They threaten the right of states to set standards that
    reflect the values of their voters and the direction consumers are
    clearly moving in.
        We urge you to defend Proposition 12 and reject any legislation
    that strips states of the ability to protect animal welfare and support
    responsible farming.
                Sincerely,

    EdenGreen,
    Idaho.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        I'm Alescia Forland of Loxley Farm Market in Alabama. I urge you to
    oppose the EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, and any
    efforts to dismantle Proposition 12.
        This isn't just about California. It's about whether states can
    decide what standards they want for the food sold within their borders.
    It's about whether farmers who invest in better practices will be
    supported or undercut.
        I support Prop 12 because it helps guide agriculture in a more
    responsible direction. That's something we should build on, not block.
                Thank you for your time,

    Alescia Forland,
    Loxley Farm Market,
    Alabama.

        Dear Committee Members,

        Missouri farmers like us know what it takes to build trust with the
    people who buy from us. Proposition 12 speaks to those values. It gives
    meaning to food raised with care. Overriding it through Congressional
    action would betray both producers and consumers who are choosing
    better. Please protect state-level progress. Say no to the EATS Act and
    stand up for Prop 12.
                Respectfully,

    Four Oaks Farm.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        Farmers know what stewardship means. We see it every day in the
    care we give. Proposition 12 is a reflection of that ethos, and I ask
    that you defend it.
        Laws like the EATS Act strip away the ability of people to shape
    food systems that reflect their values. Let California and other
    states' voters be heard. Let their standards stand.
                Thank you,

    Phyllis Franzoy,
    Mark Anthony Farms.

        To the House Agriculture Committee,

        As the owner of Frost Sheep and Desert Frost Farms in Arizona, I
    urge you to reject the EATS Act, the so-called Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, and any attempts to gut Proposition 12.
        Prop 12 is about accountability. It tells consumers: you deserve to
    know how your food is raised. And it tells farmers: there are
    opportunities when you raise animals with care. This is the direction
    farming should be heading, not toward less transparency and less local
    control.
        The Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of invalidating
    the progress states have made or silencing the voices of voters. Let
    Prop 12 stand. Let farmers grow toward higher standards, not away from
    them.
                Sincerely,

    Ryan Frost,
    Frost Sheep,
    Desert Frost Farms.

        Dear Committee Members,

        Proposition 12 matters because it reflects a growing consensus that
    animals deserve to be treated with basic decency. It's not complicated.
    People care, and so do many of us in agriculture.
        Federal proposals like the EATS Act would take that choice away,
    not just from California, but from every state trying to raise the bar.
    That's wrong. Please stand with the farmers and citizens who believe in
    something better.
                Sincerely,

    Mark Gibson,
    Berry Haven Farms.

        Dear Committee Members:

        I represent Greentree Naturals, a small farm in Idaho rooted in
    ecological stewardship and the belief that food should be produced in
    ways that are both ethical and sustainable.
        We write today to express our strong support for California's
    Proposition 12, and to voice serious concerns about Federal legislative
    efforts, such as the EATS Act, that seek to undermine it.
        Proposition 12 sets a baseline for how animals should be treated.
    It doesn't impose radical change, it affirms a simple principle:
    animals deserve enough space to move, lie down, and turn around.
    Efforts to erase Prop 12 through Federal preemption would set a
    dangerous precedent. Not only would they override the will of
    California voters, but they would also strip all states, including
    Idaho, of the ability to enact policies that reflect the priorities and
    ethics of their residents. That kind of top-down approach runs counter
    to the spirit of local agriculture and state governance.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit our views. We ask that you
    stand with farmers, consumers, and animals, and preserve the future of
    ethical agriculture in this country.
                Sincerely,

    Diane Green,
    Greentree Naturals--Certified Organic Farm,
    Sandpoint, Idaho.

        Aloha Members of the Committee,

        At Mohala Farms in Hawai`i, we work in close connection with the
    land and our community. We believe in food systems rooted in care: care
    for the [E]arth, for animals, and for those we feed.
        That's why we support Proposition 12. It's not just about one
    state; it's about a broader movement to make farming more humane, more
    transparent, and more aligned with the values of the people who eat
    what we grow.
        Please reject the EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, which would undercut that progress. We believe
    communities and states must retain the right to set standards that
    reflect their values. And please keep Prop 12 in place.
                With gratitude,
                Sincerely,

    Mark Hamamoto,
    Executive Director.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Helsing Junction Farm in Washington, we believe that animals
    deserve space to move and express natural behaviors. Our state has
    already recognized this by passing a cage-free law, and we support
    efforts like California's Proposition 12 for the same reason.
        Proposals like the EATS Act would undo the progress states have
    made. Farmers who treat animals humanely and consumers who care about
    how food is produced should not be overruled. Please reject any attempt
    to weaken Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Helsing Junction Farm,
    Washington State.

        Committee Members,

        Three Hearts Farm in Montana supports Prop 12 because it aligns
    with the basic principle that animals deserve room to move and behave
    naturally. It's not a burden, it's a reflection of values that many
    farmers already share.
        Let's not allow Congress to silence that progress through bills,
    like the EATS Act, that favor industrial scale over moral scale.
    Protect the choices states and citizens have made, and uphold Prop 12.
                Respectfully,

    Rachael Hicks,
    Three Hearts Farm, MT.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Honey Sweetie Acres, our goats are more than livestock, they are
    partners in the work we do every day. We are committed to raising
    animals with care, respect, and space to live as they were meant to.
    That philosophy is not only better for the animals, it produces better
    results in every way: from health to quality to customer trust.
        That's why we support California's Proposition 12. Laws like Prop
    12 reflect a growing understanding that how we treat animals matters,
    not just ethically, but economically and socially. They affirm that
    animal welfare is not a fringe concern, but a mainstream value that
    many farms already uphold.
        Attempts to weaken or repeal Prop 12 through measures like the EATS
    Act ignore the progress that's being made on farms like ours across the
    country. We don't need lower standards. We need consistent, fair
    policies that recognize farmers who do the right thing and protect the
    ability of states to set higher bars for welfare.
        Please reject provisions that would dismantle Prop 12 and similar
    efforts. We need to move forward, not backward.
                Sincerely,

    Honey Sweetie Acres,
    Owensville, Ohio.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee:

        My name is Sara Jones, and I serve as Co-Director of Tucson
    Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). At our core, we work to
    strengthen the connection between local farmers and the people they
    feed, guided by a commitment to sustainability, transparency, and
    community resilience. These values shape how food is grown, sourced,
    and shared every day. Proposition 12 reflects these same values by
    establishing humane and transparent standards for animal agriculture
    that align with what consumers increasingly demand: food produced with
    integrity and respect for both animals and the environment.
        Proposition 12 provides a clear, practical framework for
    responsible animal care, giving both farmers and consumers confidence
    in the food supply. These are practical standards that responsible
    producers across the country should support. Upholding this law helps
    reward those who are doing the right thing and sends a powerful message
    that accountability matters in agriculture.
        At its heart, Proposition 12 is about building trust between farms,
    families and communities. Undermining it would weaken that trust and
    move us further from a food system rooted in fairness, responsibility,
    and stewardship. I respectfully urge the Committee to protect the
    integrity of Proposition 12. Thank you for considering this testimony
    and for your service to the agricultural community.
                Sincerely,

    Sara Jones,
    Tucson Community Supported Agriculture.

        To the Committee,

        My name is Gabriel Kenyatta, and I operate Gardenscapes GCK in
    Crawfordsville, Arkansas.
        I'm writing in support of Proposition 12 and in opposition to the
    EATS Act and its revived form, which threatens state-level food
    standards and undermines farmers who operate with integrity.
        I believe in farming that reflects responsibility, not just to land
    and animals, but to the people who eat the food we grow. Prop 12
    supports that vision. It gives consumers more confidence and gives
    small farmers the ability to compete on values, not just volume.
        The EATS Act and attempts to strike down Prop 12 would erase those
    gains. They're an attack on local choice, and responsible agriculture.
    Farmers should not be punished for doing the right thing, and voters
    should not be overruled by corporate influence.
        Please reject the EATS Act, protect Prop 12 and stand up for
    fairness, food democracy, and the future of responsible farming.
                Sincerely,

    Gabriel Kenyatta,
    Gardenscapes GCK,
    Crawfordsville, AR.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We represent a small farm in Connecticut that believes the future
    of agriculture lies in integrity and compassion. Proposition 12 and
    laws like it set reasonable standards for humane treatment. The attempt
    to override it through Federal legislation not only ignores voter
    voices, it undermines good agricultural practices. Let's build forward,
    not backward. Please preserve Prop 12.

    Janet Kramka.

        Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We are a small family farm in Morris, Connecticut, operating
    Lakeside Farm right at our home on Route 109. We use organic practices
    to grow a wide variety of seasonal fruits and vegetables, and we
    prepare everything ourselves, from heirloom tomatoes and greens to
    berries, herbs, and homemade jams.
        We're writing in support of Proposition 12 and in strong opposition
    to the EATS Act and its rebranded version. These Federal efforts would
    strip states of the right to set standards that reflect local values,
    and that's a serious concern for farms like ours.
        Farming is personal, hands-on work. Consumers want to know how
    their food is produced, and more and more of them are asking for
    humane, sustainable practices. We believe in meeting that demand, not
    hiding from it. Prop 12 supports transparency, responsibility, and
    local control. The EATS Act undermines all three, favoring large-scale
    industrial interests over small farms that do things the right way.
        Please protect the right of states to make laws that reflect their
    people's values. Support Prop 12, and reject the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Lakeside Farm,
    Morris, Connecticut.

        Dear Committee Members,

        I write today as an organic farmer and gardener in Arizona to
    express strong support for California's Proposition 12. I urge you to
    oppose any Federal attempts that seek to dismantle Prop 12 or override
    the will of state voters.
        Arizona was one of the first states to ban the confinement of
    pregnant sows and veal calves in 2006. That law came from voters, just
    like Prop 12, and it reflected how Arizonans value animals, food
    quality, and responsible farming. Laws like Prop 12 have created market
    opportunities for producers who raise animals humanely.
        Undoing Prop 12 would reward the worst actors and hurt those who've
    invested in doing things right.
        Please stand up for farmers, animals, and the rights of states to
    improve food policy; uphold Prop 12 and laws like it.
                Sincerely,
    Keith Lierman,
    Tucson Organic Gardeners President.

        Dear Committee Members,

        What happens on farms matters far beyond property lines. The public
    has every right to expect humane standards, and California's
    Proposition 12 (and similar laws in my own state of Colorado) is a
    reflection of that expectation. Trying to nullify it through Federal
    overreach is not just a policy mistake, it's a moral one. We stand
    firmly against the EATS Act and other measures that aim to roll back
    ethical progress. Please do the same.
                Thank you,

    Michael Moss,
    Kilt Farm.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        I'm writing on behalf of Oahe Hills Ranch Premium Beef, where we
    raise cattle with a commitment to quality, animal care, and responsible
    land stewardship. We strongly support California's Proposition 12, and
    we oppose any Federal efforts to repeal or override it.
        As ranchers, we understand the importance of treating animals with
    respect, not only because it's right, but because it results in
    healthier animals and a better product. Proposition 12 is grounded in
    that same principle. It sets basic space requirements for animals and
    supports more humane, thoughtful production systems. These standards
    aren't burdens, they're benchmarks for integrity in agriculture.
        We know firsthand that today's consumers are asking more questions
    about where their food comes from and how it was raised. They want
    transparency, and they want to support producers who take the time to
    do things right. Laws like Prop 12 create market clarity and ensure
    that producers committed to higher standards aren't undercut by those
    relying on outdated, industrial-scale confinement.
        The law was passed by voters, upheld by the Supreme Court, and
    implemented with years of lead time. That's more than fair. In fact,
    it's a blueprint for how agricultural policy should work: clear goals,
    realistic timelines, and accountability.
        At Oahe Hills Ranch, we've built our brand on trust and quality.
    Proposition 12 supports both. Please protect this important law and
    stand with the farmers and ranchers who are leading the way toward a
    better future for agriculture.
                Sincerely,

    Oahe Hills Ranch,
    South Dakota.

        Dear Chairperson and Members of the Committee,

        I represent Lazy Moon Ranch, a small, family-run farm in Butler
    County, Kansas. Our farm is built on a foundation of sustainable
    agriculture and humane animal care. At Lazy Moon Ranch, we treat our
    animals with compassion and respect. We work with them every day, and
    that hands-on experience has taught us that when animals are given the
    space and care they need, they thrive.
        As a farmer who strongly believes in animal welfare, I view
    California's Proposition 12 not as a burden, but as a standard of
    responsible farming. It requires that animals have room to move freely
    and express natural behaviors--conditions that lead to healthier
    animals and safer food. These values resonate with today's consumers,
    who want to know how their food is produced. Meeting those expectations
    not only strengthens trust in agriculture, but also reinforces our role
    as stewards of the land and caretakers of the animals we raise.
        Efforts at the Federal level to dismantle Proposition 12 would
    undermine both the will of California voters and the broader, growing
    commitment to ethical and sustainable farming across the country.
    Millions of Americans supported Prop 12 because they believe in
    transparency, food safety, and the humane treatment of animals.
    Overturning it would ignore that clear message and set back the
    progress farmers like me have worked hard to achieve.
        Preserving Proposition 12 sends a powerful message that American
    agriculture can evolve while staying true to its core values of care,
    responsibility, and integrity. This isn't about one state imposing its
    will on others. It's about raising the bar for how we feed our nation.
    I urge you to protect this important law and the future it represents
    for farmers, animals, and consumers alike.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Jerramy & Erin Pankratz,
    Lazy Moon Ranch.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        As a proud Wisconsin farmer, I believe in treating farmed animals
    with care and respect. That is why I support Proposition 12. It sets
    fair, reasonable standards that align with how many of us already
    farm--with decency, transparency, and respect. Voters asked for better
    animal welfare and food safety standards, and farmers like me are
    meeting that demand.
        The EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and similar
    bills would wipe out the progress so many of us have made. It is wrong
    to let big interests override the will of the people and undercut those
    of us who are doing things right. I urge you to stand with Proposition
    12 and protect what it stands for.
                Thank you,

    Parisi Family Farm.

        Dear House Agriculture Committee Members:

        At Tawanda Farms, where we raise grass-fed sheep and beef cattle,
    we love our animals and it's important that we treat them with respect
    for the livelihood they have given us. It's not just our farm that
    believes this, but the majority of Californians. Our state has
    consistently shown that we value humane treatment of animals and
    responsible food production. Through ballot measures like 2018's
    Proposition 12, voters made it clear: Californians want a food system
    that reflects our values.
        That's why a recently introduced, misleadingly named Federal bill,
    the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, is so alarming. This bill
    would override the will of voters, wiping out humane and food safety
    standards California residents voted to put in place.
        For family farms like ours, this is more than politics, it's
    personal. We've seen firsthand how important it is for states to have
    the ability to set standards for humane and responsible food production
    and sales. We also know that farmers have invested time, care and money
    into aligning operations with what Californians expect. Rolling back
    standards rewards industrial-scale producers, many of which are
    foreign-owned, that cut corners and undermine farmers who are doing the
    right thing.
        We urge Members of Congress to reject the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act and stand with the people of California and responsible
    farmers.

    Carol Pasheilich,
    Tawanda Farms, CA.

        Dear Committee Members:

        At Podunk's Ranch in southwestern Colorado, family tradition and a
    sincere commitment to sustainability stand at the heart of everything
    we do. As a woman-owned farm, we are dedicated and responsible stewards
    of the land, following sound grazing principles, ensuring high animal
    welfare standards, and implementing sustainable practices that reflect
    deep respect for the animals and environment that sustain us. This
    approach not only guides our daily operations, it has helped us build
    lasting trust with a loyal network of customers who count on us to
    provide responsibly sourced food for their families.
        However, the values that define and guide our farm are now under
    threat. Attempts to undo California's Proposition 12 and laws like it
    dismantle hard-won, voter-approved animal welfare protections across
    the country.
        Here in Colorado, we have enacted our own laws regarding the
    confinement of pigs, calves, and egg-laying hens, laws that reflect a
    growing understanding that intensive confinement of farm animals is
    inconsistent with both animal welfare and public health. In fact, a
    recent survey by the Animal-Human Policy Center at Colorado State
    University found that over 80% of Americans support measures to end
    confinement practices. This isn't a partisan issue. It's a public
    values issue.
        Overriding state-level protections and silencing the will of voters
    would transfer power from local communities and their elected officials
    to large corporate interests, many of which are foreign-owned, whose
    primary motivation is profit. That is not responsible governance. It
    undermines the fundamental principle that citizens have a right to
    shape the standards under which their food is produced.
        This is a defining moment. We ask you to stand with the people.
    Defend the values that sustain our farms and our communities. Support
    responsible farming, democratic decision-making, and the right of
    states to lead on agricultural policy. Please support Prop 12 and laws
    like it.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective.
                Sincerely,

    Podunk's Ranch, Colorado.

        Dear Committee Members,

        I farm because I believe in working with integrity--toward the
    land, the animals, and the people who rely on us. Proposition 12 and my
    own state's Question 3 support that approach.
        Attempts to strip away such laws through legislation like the Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act tell farmers like me that our values
    don't matter. But they do. And so do the values of voters who passed
    these measures.
        Please protect those values.
                Sincerely,

    Wenona Racicot,
    Chockalog Farm.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        As a small family farmer from Idaho, I strongly support preserving
    Proposition 12. This law is not extreme, it simply ensures that animals
    raised for food are given basic freedoms, such as the ability to move
    around and lie down comfortably. These are reasonable, common-sense
    standards that form the foundation of humane, responsible farming. They
    also contribute to a safer, more transparent food system.
        When laws like Proposition 12 are upheld, it sends a clear message
    that the agriculture industry values more than just profit. It shows
    that we care about how food is produced, not just the end result.
    That's how we build trust with consumers. In contrast, efforts to roll
    back these standards (like the EATS Act and similar proposals) send the
    wrong message. They tell the public that the ethical treatment of
    animals doesn't matter, and that the will of voters can be ignored.
        That's not the future we should be moving toward. The standards in
    Proposition 12 reflect a future where farming is both ethical and
    sustainable. That's the kind of agriculture I'm proud to be a part of.
        Thank you for your time.

    Mike Reid,
    Paradise Springs Farm.

        To the House Agriculture Committee,

        I became a farmer because I care deeply about how food is produced
    for not just my family, but for every family in my community.
    Proposition 12 aligns with what so many Americans believe: that animals
    should be treated humanely, and that food safety begins on the farm. It
    reflects shared values of compassion, care, and responsibility.
        I am concerned that bills like the EATS Act and the Food Security
    and Farm Protection Act would erode that trust by stripping states of
    their right to set thoughtful standards. These bills threaten the
    connection between farmers and consumers, one that Proposition 12 has
    helped strengthen. Please defend this progress and support a food
    system we can all be proud of.
                Respectfully,

    Elizabeth Robb.

      Hon. Angie Craig,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. James P. McGovern,
      Representative,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern,

        My name is Blake Sensenig, and I'm a pork producer from Lancaster
    County, Pennsylvania. I own and operate a 600 head sow breeding and
    weaner piglet producing barn. I produce over 15,000 piglets each year.
        California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts Question 3 provided
    our family an opportunity to enter the pigs business. We built our new
    sow farm 3 years ago to cater to this market sector. We are opposed to
    any Federal legislation that would interfere with the states right to
    determine their own food production standards. Overturning these
    established market channels would be a significant blow to our business
    plan/model and ability to run a profitable new pig farm.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns with you.
                Sincerely,

    Blake Sensenig.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        At Songbird Haven Farm here in Washington, we take pride in growing
    food that supports the broader ecosystem, above and below the soil. Our
    practices are rooted in long-term sustainability, care for the land,
    and a deep respect for the interconnectedness of life.
        That's why we support Proposition 12. Like Washington's own cage-
    free standards, Prop 12 reflects a growing consensus among farmers,
    voters, and consumers that food should be produced in ways that are not
    only safe and sustainable, but also humane.
        Efforts to override these hard-won state laws are deeply
    concerning. They ignore the will of the people, undermine democratic
    decision-making, and threaten the integrity of independent farms trying
    to do things the right way.
        We ask you to protect state-level standards like Prop 12 and reject
    any attempt to weaken them via the EATS Act, farm bill or other
    Congressional action.
                Thank you,

    Songbird Haven Farm,
    Washington State.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        My name is Jerry Steckler, and I run Steckler Grassfed in Dale,
    Indiana. We produce organic, grass-fed, pasture-based food with a focus
    on animal welfare, soil health, and transparency, because we believe in
    doing right by both the land and the animals in our care.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the importance
    of Proposition 12 to independent farmers who are deeply committed to
    ethical livestock practices.
        Proposition 12, passed by the voters of California in 2018, is not
    merely a regulation, it is a declaration that consumers and farmers
    alike care about how animals are treated in our food system. It
    requires that animals such as pigs, calves, and egg-laying hens be
    raised in conditions that allow them to move freely and express basic
    behaviors that align with any farmer's understanding of humane care.
        At Steckler Grassfed, we've always believed that healthy soil,
    healthy animals, and healthy communities are interconnected. Our
    animals are raised on pasture, where they can engage in their natural
    behaviors. This is not only better for the animal, but it leads to
    healthier products and greater trust with our customers.
        Proposition 12 supports farmers like us who have invested in humane
    systems. When large-scale industrial farms are allowed to undercut
    responsible producers by confining animals in cruel, restrictive
    environments, the market punishes those of us doing the right thing.
    Prop 12 begins to correct that imbalance. It says that if you want
    access to California's market, you must meet minimum standards of
    decency in animal care. That's not only fair, it's a reflection of what
    the public wants and what responsible farming requires.
        Let me be clear: Proposition 12 is not an attack on farmers. It is
    a recognition that animal welfare, food quality, and consumer values
    matter. It's a safeguard for the integrity of our food system and for
    the families who have built their farms on trust, ethics, and respect,
    for animals and people alike.
        I urge this Committee to support Proposition 12 and to resist any
    efforts, like the EATS Act, to weaken or override it. Let us not step
    backward into a system that favors volume over values. Instead, let us
    lift up the farmers who are already doing it right.
        Thank you for your time and attention.
                Sincerely,

    Jerry Steckler,
    Steckler Grassfed,
    Dale, IN.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Secret Keepers Ranch here in Wisconsin, we raise pigs with care,
    space, and dignity. Our customers know that when they purchase from us,
    they're supporting a farm that refuses to cut corners when it comes to
    how animals are treated.
        Proposition 12 affirms the kind of values we already live by on our
    farm. It rewards the hard work of producers who prioritize animal well-
    being and gives consumers confidence in the standards behind their
    food. We know pork production without confinement is possible and
    profitable; we do it every day.
        Efforts like the EATS Act would undo years of progress and punish
    the very farmers who are doing it right. We urge you to reject those
    measures and uphold Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Cathy Stoll,
    Secret Keepers Ranch--Wisconsin.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Tiny Giant Farm in Kalamazoo, Michigan, we built our farm on the
    belief that small, everyday actions can lead to big, lasting change.
    That's why we support California's Proposition 12 and Michigan's own
    crate-free standards, because how animals are treated in our food
    system matters, and our policies should reflect that.
        We farm small so we can farm responsibly. That means staying close
    to the land, listening to what it needs, and doing right by the animals
    and people who depend on it. Proposition 12 gives voice to those
    values. It's a policy rooted in respect: for animals, for farmers, and
    for consumers.
        Efforts to undo laws like Prop 12b (through the EATS Act or other
    Federal overreach) would silence the work that farms like ours do every
    day to raise the bar. Voters in California and Michigan have made it
    clear: humane treatment of animals is not optional. It's a basic
    expectation.
        We urge you to reject any provision that would weaken these laws.
    Let the states lead where they've already shown the courage to act.
                Sincerely,

    Tiny Giant Farm,
    Kalamazoo, MI.

        Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Walt Tysinger, and I operate WildSide Farm in Chapel
    Hill, North Carolina. Our motto is Healthy Soil. Healthy Food. Healthy
    People. That principle guides everything we do, from how we treat the
    land to how we raise food for our community.
        I'm writing in strong support of Proposition 12 and in opposition
    to the EATS Act and any attempt to revive it under a new name. These
    bills are harmful because they would take away states' ability to
    uphold higher standards for animal welfare, food quality, and
    transparency, the very values our farm stands on.
        Prop 12 helps support farmers like me who choose ethical,
    sustainable practices. The EATS Act would do the opposite. It would
    give more power to industrial operations and erase the progress states
    have made to meet the expectations of informed consumers.
        We need more accountability in agriculture, not less. I urge you to
    protect Prop 12, reject the EATS Act, and stand with independent
    farmers and the people who support them.
                Sincerely,

    Walt Tysinger,
    WildSide Farm,
    Chapel Hill, NC.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        At Valley Flora Farm, our work is rooted in care, care for the
    land, for our community, and for the values that guide responsible food
    production. As a small mother-and-two-daughter-run farm in Oregon,
    we've seen firsthand how thoughtful policies, like Oregon's own animal
    welfare and cage-free standards, support both humane farming and public
    trust.
        Proposition 12 reflects that same spirit. It aligns with the
    direction many of us have already embraced: producing food in ways that
    honor the dignity of animals and the expectations of informed
    consumers.
        Any attempts to override Prop 12 (via the EATS Act or other
    Congressional action) would undo progress, progress shaped by years of
    effort, investment, and commitment from farmers and voters alike. We
    urge you to reject any provisions that seek to undermine state laws
    like Prop 12.
        Let's protect the integrity of food grown with purpose and care.
                Sincerely,

    Valley Flora Farm,
    Langlois, OR.

        Dear Recipient,

        As members of the Pennsylvania Pork Producers Strategic Investment
    Program, we are writing to share our opposition of repealing
    California's Proposition 12 (``Prop 12'') and Massachusetts Question 3
    (``MA Q3''). Pushing for this legislation to be repealed will lead to
    more consumer distrust at a time when consumers are interested in
    learning more about their food supply. While we do not support a
    patchwork of state-issued standards, our consumers deserve a choice in
    how their safe, wholesome pork is produced. Producer success and
    lasting consumer trust rely on change and innovation.
        We strongly believe in pork producers' ability to meet the requests
    of their consumers. Prop 12 and MA Q3 do not force producers to make
    production changes. Hog producers are free to choose how to respond to
    market demands, and each producer will make this decision based on what
    is best for their business. Historically, Midwestern hog producers have
    enjoyed the advantage of low-cost production due to their proximity to
    the corn belt. We believe market dynamics help drive innovation in our
    industry and allow hog producers to fill a niche market created by
    consumer demands. Pennsylvania producers are positioned to meet this
    demand, drawing on established production practices and animal
    husbandry methods.
        Furthermore, utilizing our expertise in animal husbandry, we feel
    strongly that investment in different types of production practices is
    valuable for the long-term viability of the pork industry in
    Pennsylvania. For Pennsylvania pork producers to remain competitive, it
    is imperative for the industry, and Pennsylvania specifically, to
    remain a leader of progressive animal care and to ensure flexibility to
    meet the ever-changing demands of consumers.
        In that regard, please do not repeal Prop 12 or MA Q3.
                Sincerely,

    Matt Walters,                        Kurt Good,
    PA SIP Co-Chair                      PA SIP Co-Chair

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        At Willowbrook Farm and Sheep Dairy, we are proud to be a veteran-
    owned family farm raising sheep, chickens, goats, and fresh eggs. In
    2021, we invested in a water system to ensure our sheep could thrive,
    because doing right by our animals is simply how we farm.
        We stand firmly against the EATS Act because it would erase state-
    level standards like Prop 12, standards that reward transparency,
    responsibility, and humane practices, and that give farmers like us a
    level playing field and a chance to compete with integrity.
        Our farm is built on service, not shortcuts. Please protect the
    rights of states and the values of hard-working farmers like us. Uphold
    Prop 12, and say no to the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Willowbrook Farm and Sheep Dairy,
    Arkansas.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Winged Elm Farm in Philadelphia, Tennessee, we raise pigs,
    cattle, and lamb with care and intention for our direct-market
    customers. We believe that how an animal lives directly affects the
    quality of the food it produces--and more importantly, it's the right
    thing to do.
        We support California's Proposition 12 because it recognizes what
    responsible farmers already know: extreme confinement like gestation
    crates is inhumane. Our animals have space to move, graze, root, and
    live naturally. Not only is this better for their well-being, but it's
    also what our customers expect and deserve.
        Prop 12 has created new market opportunities for farms like ours--
    farms that prioritize humane treatment and thoughtful animal husbandry.
    We urge Congress to reject any attempt to weaken this progress, whether
    through the EATS Act or other preemption efforts.
        Let the people who care about how food is produced, farmers and
    consumers alike, continue to make those choices at the state level.
                Sincerely,

    Winged Elm Farm,
    Philadelphia, TN.
    July 23, 2025
        Dear Committee Members,

        At Anita's AREA Farms in Arizona, we believe in raising animals
    with care, respect and basic humanity. Standards like those in
    Proposition 12 reflect values that responsible farmers already uphold.
        Efforts to weaken Prop 12 would undermine both animal welfare and
    the trust consumers place in food producers. We urge you to defend Prop
    12 and support farms that are doing things right.
                Sincerely,

    Anita's AREA Farms, Arizona.

        Dear Chair Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Esteemed Members of
    the Committee:

        We are running a small farm in Mendocino County, California, on
    which we grow many fruits and vegetables as well as raising pigs,
    chickens, ducks, pigeons, and cows. We urge you to vote NO on the EATS
    Act in Congress. California voters passed Prop 12 mandating humane
    conditions for farm animals. The EATS Act and other attempts to roll
    back Prop 12 would hurt responsible farmers like us since it would
    encourage large, industrial producers with no regard for animal
    husbandry to cut corners. We strongly support raising animals more
    humanely than CAFO's do.

        We support Prop 12, and we oppose the EATS Act.

                Thank you,

    Nikki [Ausschnitt] and Steven [Krieg],
    Petit Teton Farm,
    Yorkville, CA.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        We are proud to say we are farmers. At Bean Hollow Grassfed, we
    raise pigs, cattle, and sheep on diverse pastures and wooded lands
    where animal health, soil health, and ecosystem health are deeply
    interconnected. Every task we do, from fixing fences to rotating
    pastures, is part of a larger mission to farm in a way that's good for
    animals, good for people, and good for the planet.
        Our pigs live in wooded areas where they root, forage, and express
    their natural behaviors. Proposition 12 sets a baseline standard that
    animals should be able to move freely. For farms like ours that go
    beyond these standards, Prop 12 helps ensure that industrial
    confinement systems don't set the market terms for everyone else.
        Efforts to dismantle Prop 12 threaten not only animal welfare, but
    also the viability of farms that are trying to do things right. When
    voters demand higher standards, those decisions should be respected,
    not overridden. We urge you to preserve Prop 12 and reject any
    attempts, like the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, that would
    strip away states' ability to set basic, responsible standards.
        Thank you for your time and for listening to farmers who are doing
    the work on the ground.
                Sincerely,

    Bean Hollow Grassfed

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        My name is Angela Bivens, and I own and operate White Stone Ranch
    in Webster, Texas, where we raise Hereford cattle on open pasture. We
    take pride in maintaining high standards for animal care, land
    stewardship, and transparency in how we operate.
        While Proposition 12 focuses on the treatment of pigs, veal calves,
    and egg-laying hens, it represents something bigger for producers like
    me. It's about a shared commitment to quality, ethics, and the right of
    states to reflect the will of their people. California voters passed
    Prop 12 because they wanted to support a food system that values humane
    treatment of animals. That's their right, and frankly, it's a message
    we hear more and more from consumers across the country.
        Undermining Prop 12 would send the signal that national policy is
    more responsive to powerful processors than to the people who do the
    work or the citizens who vote. That's not good for farmers, and it's
    not good for democracy.
        Please respect state rights, respect the voices of voters, and
    support a future where integrity in agriculture is not just encouraged,
    but protected.
                Sincerely,

    Angela Bivens,
    White Stone Ranch, TX.

    Hon. Glenn Thompson,                 Hon. Angie Craig,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
    House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:

        We, the undersigned farmers, raise hogs in compliance with
    California's Proposition 12 and supply pork to this important market.
    We write today to thank those Members of Congress who have rejected
    attempts to strip us of this opportunity, and to urge all Members to
    continue standing with American family farmers.
        For us, this market is not political, but rather an opportunity to
    improve the financial success of our operations. Proposition 12 has
    created a stable, premium market that allows us to sustain our farms,
    invest in better infrastructure and livestock care, and continue
    farming in an increasingly consolidated industry. We readily decided to
    comply with these standards, made the necessary investments, and now
    rely on this market as a part of our farms' financial futures.
        In the last Congress, language was included in the House farm bill
    draft that would eliminate this market opportunity. It would undercut
    the very market we have worked hard to serve, penalizing farmers who
    chose to innovate and respond to consumer demand.
        Meanwhile, it would protect those who refused to adapt, including
    the largest corporate pork producers, such as China-owned Smithfield
    Foods. Multinational firms do not need Congress to shield them from
    competition, but family farmers like us need fair access to markets we
    have earned.
        We respectfully ask you to reject any proposal that would dismantle
    the market created by Proposition 12, and again thank the many Members
    of Congress who continue to stand with independent farmers and the
    consumers we serve.
                Sincerely,

    Mike Butcher, Palmyra, Illinois      Gary Mudd, Silex, Missouri
    Jeff Kuhn, Shabbona, Illinois        Pat Mudd, Silex, Missouri
    Steve Maxwell, Rush Hill, Missouri   Terry Mudd, Silex, Missouri
    Daryl Mudd, Silex, Missouri          Wes Rynders, Greenfield, Missouri
    Dave Mudd, Silex, Missouri           Brian Sjostrand, Hartsburg,
                                          Missouri
    Dean Mudd, Silex, Missouri           Jean Sjostrand, Hartsburg, Missouri
    Debbie Mudd, Silex, Missouri         Bob Street, Whiteside, Missouri
    Don Mudd, Silex, Missouri

    cc: Members of the House Committee on Agriculture

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Debbie Duplisea, and I operate Happy Hollow Farm in
    Barre, Massachusetts. I'm writing to express my support for
    California's Proposition 12 and my own state's Question 3; along with
    my opposition to any legislative effort (such as the EATS Act or the
    Food Security and Farm Protection Act) that seeks to weaken or override
    these important laws.
        Like Question 3, Prop 12 represents a step forward in how we
    approach food production. It sets a basic expectation that animals
    should be treated with dignity and that consumers have a right to know
    how their food is produced. Undoing it would be a step backwards, for
    farmers, for public trust, and for the integrity of our food system.
        Please respect the will of the people, the role of states in
    shaping food policy, and the values that responsible farmers uphold
    every day. Stand against efforts to dismantle Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Debbie Duplisea,
    Happy Hollow Farm,
    Barre, Massachusetts.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        At Taste of the Wind, raising animals with care and respect is our
    way of life. From pasture-raised eggs to responsibly produced chicken,
    beef, and lamb, we know what it takes to raise animals humanely and
    sustainably. These values aren't just good for the animals; they're
    good for our customers and our rural community.
        That's why we support Proposition 12 and strongly oppose efforts
    like the EATS Act that would override it. Prop 12 creates real
    opportunities for farmers like us who prioritize animal welfare, and
    preserves local autonomy in choosing what and how we eat and raise
    food. It recognizes the kind of care and stewardship we already
    practice and want to see adopted as sustainable and healthy for lives
    across the food shed.
        Trying to wipe out these state-level laws, like Prop 12, with one-
    size-fits-all legislation only serves corporate interests, not family
    farmers, not the animals, and certainly not the people who eat the
    food.
        We urge you to support Prop 12 and laws like it; stand with
    responsible farmers; and reject the EATS Act and other attempts to
    weaken Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    BJ Edwards,
    Taste of the Wind,
    Wyoming.

        Dear Committee Members,

              Ekvn-Yefolecvlket oweyat, pum etvlwvt emvkerrickv ohfvccvn
            nak cen hocciceyat, fvccuset ontos. Eyasketv teropotten cen
            hoccicet okes. Ohhonvyepakvccvs.

        We submit this testimony on behalf of Ekvn-Yefolecv, a climate-
    positive, income-sharing ecovillage community of Indigenous Maskoke
    People who, after 180 years of having been forcibly removed, returned
    to our homelands in what is commonly known as Alabama with unwavering
    commitments to: revitalizing Maskoke language and culture, regenerative
    agriculture for food sovereignty, ecological restoration, endangered
    species conservation, restorative economics, and natural building
    construction.
        Our ancestors made a covenant with the Creator that we would be
    caretakers of all human and non-human life situated within the
    bioregional ecology in which Maskoke People resided since time
    immemorial until our forced removal. Today, our community is situated
    on 7,498 acres where we daily strive to live into this covenant--
    unequivocally the core of our Maskoke identity. We do not view non-
    human beings as mere commodities. Rather, as Indigenous regenerative
    farmers, our ecovillage recognizes that the beings with whom we co-
    reside in this ecosystem, including the agricultural environment, are
    integral to our ecological, spiritual, and linguistic survival. Our
    commitment to regenerative agriculture is grounded in reverence for
    life and reciprocity. We ensure the bison and endangered livestock
    breeds (American Guinea Hogs, San Clemente Island Goats, Gulf Coast
    Sheep and eight chicken breeds) that we raise are provided a species-
    rich pasture with diverse forbs, graminoids, nuts and fruits, through
    which they are regularly rotated. As these animals mature on pastures,
    our community provides them opportunities to live long lives--
    recognizing that they contribute immensely to ecosystem restoration in
    these lands we cherish as Maskoke People. We hold traditional
    ceremonies to honor the life of every single animal we cull, therein
    offering deep gratitude for the nourishment they provide not only to
    our community, but likewise to our customers who purchase meat from us
    because they appreciate the ways in which we care for these animals.
        Proposition 12 represents a modest but meaningful affirmation of
    these principles. It ensures that animals raised for food are afforded
    space and dignity, and it opens pathways for food systems that nourish
    without dominating. It affirms what we know to be true through
    thousands of years of Maskoke teachings, traditional ecological
    knowledge and practices: when we treat animals with care, our
    communities and ecosystems thrive in return.
        We oppose legislative attempts, like the EATS Act, that seek to
    erase hard-won protections such as Prop 12. These efforts erode food
    sovereignty, undermine sustainable agriculture, and deepen the
    disconnection between people, animals, and the land.
        We call upon Congress to respect the authority of communities and
    states to uphold values that align with ecological responsibility and
    justice for all beings. Protecting Proposition 12 is one small act
    toward restoring right relationships with all life.
                Mvto pumapohicackat, ce kicaketos (to all of you, we
                express gratitude for listening)

        Ekvn-Yefolecv Ecovillage

        Dear Committee Members,

        From South Carolina, we watch as Prop 12 sets an example. It's a
    law rooted in respect--for animals, for farmers, and for the people who
    care about where their food comes from. Undoing it through legislation
    like the EATS Act would be a blow to farmers who work ethically and
    communities who support them. We urge you to protect Prop 12 and reject
    efforts that strip away hard-earned progress.
                Thank you,

    Fire Ant Farms, SC.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At GG's Alpaca Farm in Kansas, we care deeply for our animals and
    understand what humane treatment means day in and day out. Proposition
    12 sets a minimum standard of decency, not a radical one. Any Federal
    attempt to overturn it would prioritize industrial convenience over
    care, and that's not a path we want agriculture in this country to
    take. Please stand up for animal welfare and the farmers who practice
    it. Protect Prop 12.
        Thank you,

    GG's Alpaca Farm LLC,
    Kansas,

        Dear Esteemed Committee Members:

        My name is Brian Grantham, and I am a former cattle farmer from
    rural Arkansas. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony
    in support of Proposition 12 and to express strong opposition to
    efforts such as the EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm Protection
    Act, which seek to undermine it.
        Though I no longer actively farm, I spent many years living close
    to the land and to the animals in my care. I believe deeply in the
    importance of raising livestock with dignity. We worked hard each day
    to provide our animals with the space, attention, and humane
    environment they deserved. For me, this was never about politics--it
    was about values. And those values are shared by millions of consumers
    who care how their food is produced.
        Proposition 12 represents a step toward more responsible, ethical
    farming. It affirms that animals should be able to move freely and live
    in conditions that reflect a basic standard of decency.
        Federal proposals like the EATS Act would override the will of
    voters and strip states of the ability to uphold these values. That's
    not about easing burdens on farmers--it's about silencing local voices
    and reversing progress.
        I urge this Committee to recognize that many farmers, past and
    present, support humane standards and oppose any effort to roll them
    back. We should not allow the interests of industrial operations to
    drown out the voices of those who believe in transparency, decency, and
    accountability in agriculture.
        Thank you for your time and for considering the perspectives of
    farmers like me who care about the integrity and future of our food
    system.
                Sincerely,

    Brian Grantham,
    Former Farmer, Arkansas.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        At Guidry Organic Farms in Louisiana, we're known for our organic
    pecans, but we also raise egg-laying hens. And when you care for hens
    every day, you learn what they need to thrive. They need room to
    stretch their wings. They need sunlight. They need to move around and
    express their natural behaviors like scratching, dust bathing, and
    laying eggs in peace. That's not radical, it's just responsible, humane
    animal care.
        That's why we support California's Proposition 12 and other efforts
    like it. These are commonsense standards that reflect how family
    farmers across the country already treat their animals. Prop 12 isn't
    extreme; it simply asks producers to meet a baseline of decency. It
    also gives consumers the right to support farms that reflect their
    values.
        We've seen firsthand how healthier, less-stressed hens lead to
    better eggs and a better environment. Our hens aren't confined to
    battery cages, and we never saw the need for that. Instead, we treat
    them with care, and they reward us with strong, steady production.
        Efforts to overturn Prop 12 or strip away the rights of states to
    set animal welfare standards, like the so-called Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, are misguided. They take power away from voters, hurt
    responsible farmers, and prioritize the lowest standards over what's
    right.
        We urge the Committee to stand with family farms and animal
    welfare. Preserve Proposition 12 and protect the right of states to set
    fair, science-based standards.
                Sincerely,

    Guidry Organic Farms.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Alpacas at Lone Ranch in White City, Oregon, we raise alpacas
    with care, purpose, and respect for the animals and the environment.
    Our farm is built on values of ethical stewardship, transparency, and
    quality.
        We strongly oppose the EATS Act, under any name, because it
    threatens the ability of states to set their own agricultural
    standards--standards that often go beyond the bare minimum and reflect
    the expectations of today's consumers. Laws like California's
    Proposition 12 are important examples of how states can lead the way in
    promoting responsible and humane farming practices. The EATS Act would
    erase that progress.
        Please protect states' rights and the farmers who are committed to
    doing things the right way. Protect Prop 12. Reject the EATS Act.

                Sincerely,

    Renate Gyuro,
    Alpacas at Lone Ranch,
    White City, Oregon.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        As an organic farmer in Arizona, I support California's Proposition
    12 and urge you to reject any attempt to override it, including the
    EATS Act or the Food Security and Farm Protection Act.
        Prop 12 reflects what our customers expect: food from farms that
    prioritize health, safety, and humane treatment of animals. It doesn't
    dictate how farmers operate; it simply says that if you want to sell
    into California, you meet basic standards. That's fair, and it has
    created opportunity for producers like me who already go above and
    beyond.
        Food safety and animal welfare matter. Please protect these values,
    and keep Prop 12 as it was enacted.
                Sincerely,

    Stanley Hagyard.

        To the Members of Congress,

        My name is Jolene Hammond, and I raise pigs at Basswood Acres in
    Dresser, Wisconsin. On our farm, we believe animals deserve to be
    treated with care and respect, not just because it's good farming, but
    because it's the right thing to do.
        I strongly support California's Proposition 12 and urge you to
    reject the EATS Act and any Federal legislation that would override it.
        Proposition 12 reflects a shift in public values--a growing
    recognition that how animals are treated matters. It gives consumers
    the right to food raised under humane conditions and gives farmers like
    me the opportunity to meet that demand by raising animals responsibly
    and ethically. After all, you are what you eat!
        The EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act would
    strip states of the ability to set these higher standards. It would
    erase progress and force all of us to accept the bare minimum,
    regardless of how we farm or what our customers want. That's not
    freedom. That's corporate protectionism at the expense of independent
    producers and informed consumers.
        I ask you to stand with the many farmers who are doing things the
    right way. Support Prop 12, and please reject the EATS Act and other
    Federal attempts to override Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Jolene Hammond,
    Basswood Acres,
    Dresser, Wisconsin.

        Dear Members of the Committee:

        As a CSA farm in Tennessee, we believe in building a food system
    rooted in care--care for the land, for our animals, and for the people
    we feed. We operate close to the soil and close to our community.
    That's why we support California's Proposition 12 and oppose any
    attempt, like the EATS Act, to overturn it.
        Prop 12 sets basic expectations: that farm animals should be able
    to move. This isn't a radical demand. It's a common-sense standard that
    matches what customers increasingly expect.
        Trying to block these kinds of laws doesn't just go against animal
    welfare, it goes against the very idea of local control. Our
    communities should have the right to shape the kind of food system we
    want, just like Californians and voters in other states have already
    done.
        Congress should protect the freedom of farmers to farm with
    integrity and the freedom of states to uphold meaningful standards.
    Please reject any provision that would strip away those rights.
                Respectfully,

    Hernandez Family Organics.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        At Hidden Gem Farm in Tennessee, we operate a community-supported
    agriculture (CSA) program rooted in care for the land, for people, and
    for the animals in our food system. We raise chickens, ducks, and
    turkeys on our farm, and we partner with another local farm that
    humanely raises and processes the beef we sell. This model reflects
    values of transparency, collaboration, and respect for life.
        California's Proposition 12 reflects those same values. It upholds
    the right of states to require more humane standards for animals raised
    for food, and it was passed overwhelmingly by voters who want better
    systems.
        That's why we urge you to protect Prop 12 and reject any provision
    in the farm bill, EATS Act, or other Federal legislation that would
    strip states of their ability to set higher agricultural standards.
    These decisions should remain in the hands of the people and the
    communities directly impacted by them.
                Sincerely,

    Hidden Gem Farm,
    Tennessee.

        Dear Committee Members,

        My name is Richard Holcomb. I'm now retired, but for many years I
    ran Coon Rock Farm in North Carolina, where we raised pigs and hens the
    way nature intended--on pasture, with space to move, forage, and live
    well. Our animals were never confined in tight crates or cages because
    we knew that good farming meant respecting the life of the animals in
    our care.
        That's why I support California's Proposition 12. It reinforces
    practices that many sustainable farms, including mine, have long
    followed. Letting animals move freely isn't radical--it's responsible.
    And it reflects what more and more consumers are asking for.
        Farming with animal welfare in mind never held us back--it helped
    us thrive. Prop 12 has created opportunities for farms willing to meet
    humane standards. Federal efforts like the EATS Act or the Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act threaten to erase that progress and
    silence the choices states and voters have made.
        I urge the Committee to defend Proposition 12 and protect the
    ability of farmers who prioritize animal care to keep doing what's
    right--for the animals, the land, and the people they feed.
                Respectfully,

    Richard Holcomb,
    Retired Farmer, Former Operator of Coon Rock Farm,
    North Carolina.

        To the Committee,

        Cobblestone Valley Farm in Preble, New York is a diversified
    Organic Dairy, also raising organic beef, pastured pork, organic
    poultry, and eggs; with care and respect. We believe in fair
    competition, humane treatment of animals, and allowing states to set
    standards that reflect the values of their communities.
        The new version of the EATS Act, like the original, is a Federal
    overreach. It would erase state-level laws like Prop 12 that are
    farmer-friendly and recognize the importance of responsible farming.
    Far from protecting farmers, this legislation puts power in the hands
    of the largest corporate interests and weakens trust in our food
    system.

        We urge you to oppose the EATS Act, preserve California's
    Proposition 12 and protect the rights of states and family farms.

                Sincerely,

    Paul & Maureen Knapp,
    Cobblestone Valley Farm,
    Preble, New York.

        I'm Christy Krieg from KC Sunshine Farm in Indiana. I support
    Proposition 12 and respectfully ask the Committee to oppose the EATS
    Act and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (which are
    identical).
        Prop 12 is about giving voters to have the law reflect their shared
    values for the humane treatment of animals. The law was not rushed. It
    was carefully implemented and has helped create new market
    opportunities for producers who care about responsible farming.
        Federal efforts to roll back Prop 12 would undo progress that
    matters to animals, to food safety, and to farming families who take
    pride in their work.
        Thank you for considering our voice in this conversation.
                Sincerely,

    Christy Krieg,
    KC Sunshine Farm Indy,
    Indiana.

        To the House Agriculture Committee,

        I respectfully urge you to defend Proposition 12 against the wave
    of Federal proposals seeking to dismantle it. The EATS Act, the Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act, and similar bills are out of touch
    with what Americans want, and what many farmers already practice.
        I am a proud Minnesota farmer, and I'm proud to stand in solidarity
    to uphold laws like Proposition 12. Prop 12 is not extreme. It's
    reasonable, and it reflects a future that respects both animals and the
    people who care for them.
                Thank you,

    Claire Lande,
    Owner and Farmer,
    Farm Lande LLC, Minnesota.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        Today's consumers do not just want food, they want to know that it
    was produced responsibly, sustainably, and ethically. As a farmer, I've
    seen firsthand how aligning with these values, animal welfare, food
    safety, and transparency, builds trust with customers and creates
    lasting relationships. Proposition 12 provides a clear framework for
    farmers to meet these expectations and stay competitive in a modern,
    evolving marketplace.
        Unfortunately, bills like the EATS Act and the Food Security and
    Farm Protection Act threaten to undo the meaningful progress
    Proposition 12 represents. Overriding this law through Federal action
    would not only disregard the will of the voters, but also penalize
    farmers who have invested in better practices. It would send a
    troubling signal that ethical progress in agriculture is optional.
        Farming is evolving, and that's a good thing. Let's support
    policies that help move agriculture forward, not backward. I urge you
    to protect Proposition 12 and reject any attempt to undermine it.
                Thank you,

    Meg McGuire,
    Colorado Farmer.

        Dear Committee Members,

        Raising healthy, high nutrient quality food is a far better farming
    goal than turning out high volume yields. We know firsthand that real
    farming is about far more than yields. It's about intentional
    stewardship of valuable resources for the long-term. It's about humane
    interactions of all relationships, the animals, the land, and local
    communities.
        Proposition 12 respects these relationships by establishing basic,
    common-sense standards of animal care. The EATS Act and similar
    proposals betray that respect in favor of high yields and unchecked
    farm consolidation.
        We ask you to defend the rights of states and the principles behind
    laws like Proposition 12.
                Thank you,

    Maggie McQuown,
    Resilient Farms LLC,
    Red Oak, IA.

        Dear Congressman McGovern,

        We Meadowlark Hearth Farm in western Nebraska are proud beef
    producers. We support Proposition 12 because it aligns with the core
    values of small-scale agriculture: stewardship, integrity, and respect
    for land, animals, and people.
        Efforts to roll back Prop 12 threaten the sovereignty of states and
    the survival of farms like ours. Farmers who go the extra mile should
    not be penalized while others race to the bottom.
        Please protect Proposition 12 and the voice of voters who supported
    it.
                Respectfully,

    Meadowlark Hearth Farm,
    Scottsbluff, NE.

        Dear Members of the Committee,

        We're writing from Muddy Feathers Farm in Orangeburg, South
    Carolina, a small, diverse family farm where we raise chickens, ducks,
    goats, and even emus. Our animals are part of our daily lives, and we
    treat them with the care and respect they deserve. That's not just good
    ethics, it's good farming.
        Proposition 12 is important because it reflects what many small
    farms like ours already practice: giving animals the space and
    conditions to live naturally. It sets a basic, humane baseline. Animals
    should not be confined so tightly they can't turn around. That's not
    farming, that's cruelty.
        We urge you to defend Prop 12 and reject efforts like the EATS Act
    and others aimed at undoing it. These attempts don't help farmers, they
    undermine those of us doing it right. Let farmers who prioritize animal
    welfare continue to thrive.
        Thank you for listening to farmers like us.
                Sincerely,

    Muddy Feathers Farm,
    Orangeburg, SC.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Odd Duck Asylum, our journey began in 2015 with a single injured
    goose named Baba. Since then, we've cared for animals of all kinds--
    giving them safety, space, and the chance to live the way nature
    intended.
        That experience has taught us a lot about what animals need to
    thrive. We support Proposition 12 because it sets basic, humane
    standards that align with what we've seen firsthand: animals suffer in
    confinement, and they flourish when treated with dignity.
        Efforts to overturn Prop 12 (like via the EATS Act) send the wrong
    message. States should be able to set policies that reflect compassion
    and common sense. Please stand with the voters, the animals, and the
    people who care for them.
                Sincerely,

    Odd Duck Asylum

        To the Committee,

        Organic Appalachian Farm is a small farm in Franklin, North
    Carolina. We're writing to express our support for Proposition 12 and
    our opposition to the EATS Act and its updated form. This kind of
    Federal overreach threatens to silence both farmers and voters who want
    a more ethical, transparent food system.
        We believe states should have the right to set basic standards that
    protect animals, consumers, and farmers who go the extra mile. Prop 12
    reflects values that matter to us, and to the growing number of
    customers who care how their food is produced. The EATS Act would erase
    those efforts and reward industrial shortcuts that don't align with
    responsible farming.
        Please stand with independent farms and support the right of states
    to uphold meaningful standards. Reject the EATS Act and defend Prop 12.
                Sincerely,

    Organic Appalachian Farm,
    Franklin, NC.

        To the Members of Congress,

        My name is Melody Peters, and I am an organic gardener in southern
    Arizona. I am writing in support of California's Proposition 12 and in
    strong opposition to the EATS Act and similar Federal efforts to
    override it.
        As someone who grows food with care for the soil, the ecosystem,
    and the people who eat from it, I believe how food is produced matters.
    Proposition 12 reflects a growing public understanding that animals are
    not just commodities. They are living beings who deserve humane
    treatment. This law also reflects the will of voters to support farming
    systems that value transparency, decency, and sustainability.
        The EATS Act threatens to take that choice away, not just from
    Californians, but from anyone who believes that states should be
    allowed to support higher standards in agriculture. It would override
    democratically enacted laws and force all of us to accept the lowest
    common denominator when it comes to food production and animal welfare.
        This isn't just about one law in one state. It's about preserving
    the right of states and communities to protect public values, support
    responsible farmers, and ensure food systems align with the ethics of
    the people they serve.
        I urge you to reject the EATS Act and uphold Proposition 12. Please
    allow states to continue building food systems that honor life,
    stewardship, and accountability.
                Sincerely,

    Melody Peters,
    Organic Gardener,
    Tucson, AZ.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Stephanie Ramthun, and I run Tampa Bees in Florida.
    While we are primarily beekeepers, our work connects us deeply to the
    land, ecosystems, and ethical stewardship of all creatures, large and
    small.
        That's why I support California's Proposition 12. It's a step
    toward more humane, transparent, and sustainable food production.
    Voters in California (and in red, blue and purple states) have made it
    clear that extreme confinement of animals raised for food is not
    acceptable.
        Rolling back these laws through the farm bill, or any attempt like
    the EATS Act, would silence the voice of voters and reward industrial-
    scale operations that put profit over welfare. It would take away
    states' rights to set their own standards and push ethical producers
    out of the marketplace.
        I urge you to protect Prop 12 and stand with the many farmers,
    ranchers, and food producers, like us, who believe good food starts
    with good practices.
                Sincerely,

    Stephanie Ramthun,
    Tampa Bees,
    Tampa, FL.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Scheel Family Farm & Flour Mill here in Michigan, we've always
    believed that how food is grown and raised should reflect respect, for
    the land, for the animals, and for the people who rely on both. That's
    why we strongly support California's Proposition 12 and stand firmly
    against efforts to dismantle it through legislation like the EATS Act
    or the so-called Food and Farm Protection Act.
        Michigan has its own laws to protect farm animals from extreme
    confinement, and we're proud of them. They're not burdens, they're
    standards that help build trust with customers and align with the
    expectations of the communities we serve. These kinds of laws create
    space for producers who are willing to take the care to do things
    right.
        Prop 12 is in that same spirit. It was passed by voters and upheld
    by the Supreme Court. Efforts to override it would rob states, and
    citizens, of the ability to demand higher standards in agriculture.
        We urge the Committee to preserve the rights of states like
    California and Michigan to protect animal welfare and support farmers
    who are committed to responsible, forward-thinking practices.
                Sincerely,

    Jonathan Scheel,
    Scheel Family Farm & Flour Mill,
    Michigan.

        Dear Committee Members,

        I'm Diane Skoss of Windsong Farm in Warren, New Jersey, and I'm
    writing to support Proposition 12 and to voice my strongest opposition
    to any legislation that seeks to undo it (like the EATS Act and the
    Food Security and Farm Protection Act).
        Prop 12 was the fruit of years of public engagement, industry
    input, and voter decision-making. It sets reasonable, clear standards
    and has opened up new opportunities for farmers committed to
    responsible production.
        Undoing it would be a setback for all of us, farmers and eaters
    alike. Please reject these misguided efforts to strip states of their
    right to lead.
                With appreciation,

    Diane Skoss,
    Windsong Farm,
    Warren, NJ.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Bill Theiss, and I raise pastured pigs at Fawn Crossing
    Farms in Bridgewater, Virginia. I'm writing today in strong support of
    California's Proposition 12 and to urge the Committee not to support
    any Federal effort, including the so-called Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, that would undermine it or similar laws passed by other
    states.
        As a farmer who works directly with pigs every day, I can tell you
    that how we raise animals matters, not just for their well-being, but
    for the quality of food we produce and the integrity of the farm
    economy. Prop 12 set basic, reasonable standards: animals like sows
    should be able to turn around. If we can't agree on that, then we've
    lost sight of what good animal husbandry really means.
        At Fawn Crossing Farms, we go well beyond Prop 12. Our pigs live
    outdoors with space to root, wallow, and act like pigs. It's better for
    the animals, and it's better for our customers who increasingly demand
    transparency and humane practices.
        Undermining Prop 12 would reward the worst actors in the system and
    punish the rest of us who are building a better future for agriculture,
    one based on sustainability and trust. Please stand with farmers who
    are doing it right. Leave Prop 12 in place, and let states continue to
    set standards that reflect their voters' values and their farmers'
    capabilities.
                Sincerely,

    Bill Theiss,
    Fawn Crossing Farms,
    Bridgewater, VA.

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Holly Whitesides, and I co-own and operate Against the
    Grain Farm in Zionville, North Carolina. We raise pigs, goats, beef
    cattle, and laying hens, and we do it with care, transparency, and
    respect for the animals and the land we steward.
        I'm writing today in strong support of California's Proposition 12,
    and in firm opposition to the EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act, or any other attempt to dismantle or override Prop 12
    or laws like it.
        On our farm, animal care is a commitment we live by. Our pigs are
    raised outdoors on pasture. Our animals have space to move, root,
    stretch, and behave like animals are meant to. This isn't radical; it's
    responsible farming. And Proposition 12 helps create market
    opportunities for farms like ours by supporting consumers who want to
    know that the food on their plate comes from animals treated with basic
    decency.
        Prop 12 didn't tell us how to farm; it simply said if producers
    want access to the California marketplace, they need to meet a baseline
    of animal welfare. That opened the door for values-aligned farmers
    across the country. It recognized care, not confinement. And it gave
    farmers like me opportunity.
        Efforts to undo this through Federal overreach would punish those
    of us who've done the right thing. They would take power away from
    voters and from farmers who are trying to feed their communities with
    integrity.
        I urge you to protect Proposition 12 and reject any legislation
    that would roll back the progress it represents.
        Thank you for your time and commitment to fair, humane farming.
                Sincerely,

    Holly Whitesides,
    Against the Grain Farm,
    Zionville, NC.

        Dear Committee Members,

        At Woods Rose Market, we support Proposition 12 because it sets
    important standards for animal welfare that reflect growing consumer
    expectations. Protecting these measures ensures that farms committed to
    humane practices can continue to thrive and provide quality products.
        We urge the Committee to uphold Prop 12 and reject any efforts to
    weaken these vital protections.
                Sincerely,

    Woods Rose Market,
    Livingston, MT.
    July 25, 2025
        To the Committee,

        At Squashington Farm in Wisconsin, we believe in farming that
    reflects care--care for the land, for the food we produce, and for the
    communities we nourish.
        We are writing in support of Proposition 12 and in opposition to
    attempts to weaken it (for example, via the EATS Act or the Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act). These Federal efforts threaten the
    rights of states to adopt higher standards that reflect the will of
    their voters and the values of small, independent farmers.
        Prop 12 recognizes practices that are best for responsible farmers,
    animals, and consumers--the kind that many of us have embraced not
    because we had to, but because we believe it's the right way to farm.
    The EATS Act would erase that progress and allow industrial agriculture
    to dictate the terms for everyone.
        Please stand with farmers who are doing things right. Defend Prop
    12 and reject the EATS Act.
                Sincerely,

    Sarah Leong and Patrick Hager,
    Squashington Farm,
    Wisconsin.

        Dear Committee Members,

        My name is Lance Samuel, and I run Bushels and Bags Farm in South
    Carolina. I strongly support Proposition 12, and I respectfully ask you
    to oppose the EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, and
    any similar attempts to erase the rights of states to regulate how food
    is produced and sold within their borders.
        As farmers, we are constantly adapting, weather, markets, supply
    chains. Prop 12 is no different. It's a law that's been on the books
    for years. Farmers had time to prepare. And many responsible producers
    have already aligned with its values, raising animals better and
    building trust with consumers.
        Prop 12 is about doing better. Please keep it in place.
                Thank you,

    Lance Samuel,
    Bushels and Bags Farm,
    South Carolina.
    July 26, 2025
        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We are writing from Allandale Farm, located in Brookline,
    Massachusetts. As a working farm and a longstanding part of our local
    food system, we support policies that reflect more ethical,
    transparent, and sustainable agriculture.
        That's why we stand in strong support of California's Proposition
    12, and our own state's Question 3, both passed overwhelmingly by state
    voters. Both laws reflect what people across the country know to be
    true: animals deserve to be raised with a basic level of care, and
    consumers deserve to know the standards behind the food they purchase.
        As farmers, we understand what it means to care for the land, our
    workers, and the animals in our food system. We also know that public
    trust in agriculture depends on showing that our practices reflect our
    shared values. Proposition 12, Question 3 and similar state laws help
    do just that. They help ensure that large-scale producers can't cut
    corners on the backs of animals, or at the expense of smaller, more
    responsible farms like ours.
        Efforts like the EATS Act and the so-called Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act threaten to undo years of progress and override the will
    of voters in both Massachusetts and California. These bills would erode
    state-level food standards and undermine trust in the very concept of
    local food democracy.
        We urge you to reject any legislation that seeks to dismantle
    California's Proposition 12, Massachusetts' Question 3, or any similar
    state agriculture policies. Please protect the rights of states, and
    support farmers who are doing things the right way.
                Sincerely,

    Allandale Farm,
    Brookline, MA.

        Dear Committee Members,

        State-level food and farming laws, like California's Prop 12,
    aren't threats, they're opportunities. They let responsible farmers
    choose practices that reflect our values and serve customers who care
    about where their food comes from. When Congress entertains provisions
    like those in the EATS Act, it puts that opportunity, and our autonomy,
    at risk.
        Let states lead. Let farmers grow. Let's keep Prop 12 standing, and
    reject measures like the EATS Act that would weaken state agriculture
    laws.
                Respectfully,

    Firewatch Ranch,
    South Dakota.
    July 27, 2025
        To the Members of Congress,

        My name is Karen Arthur, and I am an organic grower committed to
    responsible agriculture and environmental stewardship. I am writing in
    strong support of California's Proposition 12 and in firm opposition to
    the EATS Act and any Federal attempts to override state-level
    agricultural standards.
        As an organic producer, I understand that how we grow food, and how
    we treat the animals in our care, matters deeply. Proposition 12
    reflects a growing awareness that animals are sentient beings, not just
    units of production. It also reflects the will of voters who want food
    systems grounded in ethics, transparency, and sustainability.
        The EATS Act threatens to strip away those hard-won protections,
    not only from Californians, but from every state that values the right
    to raise standards and support responsible farming. It would erase
    democratically passed laws and force every state to abide by the
    weakest rules in the nation, regardless of what local communities
    believe is right.
        This is bigger than California. It's about protecting state and
    local authority to create food systems that reflect our values,
    recognize good farming practices, and protect public trust.
        I urge you to reject the EATS Act and defend Proposition 12. Let's
    stand for humane treatment, state sovereignty, and the future of
    responsible farming.
                Sincerely,

    Karen Arthur,
    Organic Grower.

        To the House Agriculture Committee:

        My name is Deana Bowling, and I run The Family Goat Farm in
    Bolivia, North Carolina. As a small farmer, I'm writing to express my
    strong opposition to the EATS Act and the newly introduced Save Our
    Bacon Act.
        These bills are a direct threat to local agriculture and rural
    livelihoods. They aim to strip away the rights of states to set their
    own standards and make decisions that reflect the values of their
    citizens. That's un-American and anti-farmer.
        Prop 12 represents progress. It created more opportunities for
    farmers who are willing to treat animals humanely. It's opened up new
    markets for those of us who prioritize responsibility and
    sustainability. Don't take that away.
        Please defend Prop 12 and oppose these harmful bills. Protect small
    farms like mine.
                Sincerely,

    Deana Bowling,
    The Family Goat Farm,
    Bolivia, NC

        Dear Members of the Committee:

        We submit this testimony on behalf of Benjamin Dick Farms, Inc. and
    Ransom Elk Ranch, based in North Dakota, with deep roots in responsible
    agriculture and rural community values.
        We are writing to express our firm opposition to the proposed Food
    Security and Farm Protection Act. These bills threaten to undermine the
    very foundation of federalism on which this country is built.
    Regardless of one's views on how agriculture should be conducted, it is
    not the role of the Federal Government to nullify the sovereign
    decisions made by individual states about commerce within their
    borders.
        Our farms believe in local control, and our operations are shaped
    by the unique needs, values, and resources of our state. If Congress
    can override state-level agricultural standards simply because a
    product comes from out-of-state, what stops the Federal Government from
    applying that logic to any state regulation in any sector? This is not
    about agriculture; it's about eroding the 10th Amendment and the rights
    it guarantees.
        In closing, we urge you to reject the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
                Respectfully,

    Benjamin Dick,
    Benjamin Dick Farms, Inc. & Ransom Elk Ranch, ND.

        To the Honorable Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Lanitta Horner, and I own Holistic Green Things, an
    urban farm in Arizona specializing in microgreens. Though I don't raise
    livestock, I care deeply about safe, clean, and ethically produced
    food, and so do our customers.
        Prop 12 gives consumers a say in how animals are treated and what
    products are allowed into their communities. Attempts to erase that
    through legislation like the EATS Act are not about food safety or
    supply; they're about centralized control and undermining public will.
        As a food producer, I stand with others who support transparency
    and responsibility. Keep Prop 12 intact. Reject the EATS Act and
    similar efforts.
                Sincerely,

    Lanitta Horner,
    Holistic Green Things, Arizona.

        To the Honorable Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We at Long Life Farm in Massachusetts grow nutrient-dense food that
    bursts with flavor by utilizing organic, biological, and mineral-
    balanced farming techniques. Our name, Long Life Farm, reflects our
    mission: to support a longer, healthier life for the land, the farmer,
    their family, and the community. We are proud to be certified organic
    by Baystate Organic Certifiers and deeply committed to practices that
    nourish people and the planet.
        We are writing today in strong support of Proposition 12 and in
    strong opposition to the EATS Act.
        Similar to Question 3 in my home state, Prop 12 represents more
    than just animal welfare--it is a reflection of the values held by the
    people of California and shared by many Americans across the country.
    It rewards farmers who invest in better living conditions for animals
    and gives consumers the freedom to support food systems aligned with
    their values.
        The EATS Act, on the other hand, would erase the hard work and
    integrity of farmers who care about humane standards. It would strip
    states of their right to support higher-welfare farming and remove
    important distinctions between factory-style operations and those of us
    striving for sustainability and care. That's not freedom--it's
    corporate overreach.
        We urge Congress to protect state-level standards like Prop 12 and
    Question 3, and reject the EATS Act. Let independent farms like ours
    continue to serve our communities with honesty, intention, and care.
                Sincerely,

    Long Life Farm,
    Hopkinton, MA.
    July 28, 2025
        To the House Agriculture Committee:

        As a farmer, I see my role as more than just producing food, it's
    about being a responsible steward of the land and a trustworthy member
    of my community. Every decision I make reflects a commitment to long-
    term sustainability and integrity. That's why I support Proposition 12
    and strongly urge you to oppose any efforts to weaken or overturn it.
    This law aligns with the values that guide my own farm: transparency,
    accountability, and respect.
        Proposition 12 represents a meaningful shift toward farming
    practices that prioritize health and ethical treatment. Consumers want
    to know that their food comes from farms that reflect their values.
    They want to support farms that care for the land, not exploit it.
    Upholding Proposition 12 is a step toward honoring that relationship
    and ensuring a fair, transparent agricultural system. I urge the
    Committee to respect the will of voters, protect state-level standards
    like Prop 12, and stand with the farmers who believe that ethics and
    stewardship belong at the heart of American agriculture.
                Thank you,

    Don Bikowicz.

      House Committee on Agriculture
      Washington, D.C.

      Re: Support for Proposition 12 and Opposition to the EATS Act and
                Save Our Bacon Act

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Stephen Parker, and I operate Wonderland Farms, LLC in
    La Grange, Kentucky, where we produce eggs, honey, and vegetables. I'm
    writing to express my strong support for California's Proposition 12
    and to urge you to oppose the EATS Act and the recently introduced Save
    Our Bacon Act.
        Prop 12 opened up a market for farmers like me: small, values-
    driven producers who raise animals in ways that reflect care, space,
    and dignity. For farmers like us, Prop 12 wasn't a burden; it was a
    business opportunity.
        The EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act would undo all of that. These
    bills would strip states of the right to enact standards for food sold
    within their borders, and instead force every state to accept the
    lowest common denominator set by corporate agriculture. That's not
    freedom. That's a corporate takeover of food policy, and it would
    punish farmers like me who've invested in responsible practices.
        Prop 12 was passed by voters. It reflects the will of consumers.
    Why should the Federal Government override that just to serve the
    interests of a handful of multinational pork corporations?
        I urge you to stand with independent farms, with responsible
    agriculture, and with the right of states to set their own standards.
    Defend Prop 12, and please vote No on the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon
    Act.
                Sincerely,

    Stephen Parker,
    Wonderland Farms, LLC,
    La Grange, KY.

        Dear Committee Members,

        I am Dr. Karen Walasek, writing from Hillhouse Farm in southwest
    Virginia. I represent one of many small, principled farms across this
    country that believe farming should be rooted in dignity, for animals,
    for people, and for the land.
        I am alarmed by attempts to nullify Prop 12 through Federal
    legislation like the EATS Act. These efforts would strip states of
    their autonomy and force consumers to accept products that don't align
    with their values.
        Prop 12 is not burdensome; it's humane. And it reflects a shift
    toward better food systems. Responsible farms are already meeting and
    exceeding these standards because customers demand it, and because it's
    the right thing to do.
        Don't stop progress for the sake out-of-touch corporations. Please
    vote no on these anti-Prop 12 bills.
                Sincerely,

    Karen Walasek, MFA, Ph.D.,
    Hillhouse Farm, VA.
    July 29, 2025
        To the Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        We are Ken and Carolyn Marrota from Dreamland Farmstead in
    Coopersburg, Pennsylvania. As small farmers, we believe that the future
    of agriculture lies in transparency, ethics, and sustainability.
        The EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act are disastrous for all three.
    These bills would wipe away years of progress in creating a food system
    that values both animals and the people who raise them.
        Prop 12 gave responsible farmers market opportunities, and the
    chance to connect with customers who want humane standards. Don't let
    that be undone. Protect the rights of states. Protect small farms.
    Oppose the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act.
                Sincerely,

    Ken and Carolyn Marrota,
    Dreamland Farmstead,
    Coopersburg, PA.

      House Committee on Agriculture
      Washington, D.C.

      Subject: Support for Proposition 12; Opposition to the EATS Act and
                Save Our Bacon Act

        Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

        I am Julie Pavlock, writing on behalf of Foothill Farm, our
    certified organic, multigenerational family farm in the Mission Valley
    of Western Montana. We have been stewarding the land and growing
    healthy, ethical food for generations, and I'm writing today to
    strongly oppose the EATS Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
        California's Proposition 12 represented a meaningful step toward
    greater accountability, animal welfare, and transparency in
    agriculture. And, despite what some large industry lobbyists claim, it
    has also created real economic opportunities for farms like ours--
    producers who care deeply about how animals are treated and how food
    reaches consumers.
        The EATS Act and its latest version, the Save Our Bacon Act, would
    undermine everything that farms like ours stand for: local control,
    responsible practices, and not cutting corners. These bills would
    override state-level laws and erase hard-won markets for farmers who
    are trying to do better. That's not deregulation; that's Federal
    favoritism for the lowest standards money can buy.
        Our customers, whether in Montana or across state lines, value the
    effort we put into responsible farming. Why should that be invalidated
    just to give massive pork corporations special treatment?
        I respectfully urge this Committee to defend Prop 12 and reject the
    EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act. Protect our right to farm responsibly,
    and the rights of states to support those efforts.
                Sincerely,

    Julie Pavlock,
    Foothill Farm,
    Mission Valley, MT.
    July 30, 2025
        To the House Agriculture Committee,

        My name is Ted Domville, and I help run Elodie Farms, a goat farm
    in Rougemont, North Carolina.
        I never thought I'd be writing testimony to Congress, but this is
    too important to stay quiet. The EATS Act and the Save Our Bacon Act
    are deeply misguided attempts to override the will of voters and
    undermine small farms like ours.
        Proposition 12 wasn't just about pigs. It was about a philosophy of
    food: that consumers should be able to support ethical, humane farming
    practices, and that states should be able to set standards that reflect
    their people's values. It's the kind of law that makes people proud to
    farm with compassion.
        These new Federal bills, by contrast, are written to strip states
    of their power and hand it over to the biggest meat conglomerates on
    the planet. If passed, they'll create a race to the bottom, where only
    the cheapest, cruelest methods survive, and thoughtful farms get boxed
    out.
        I ask you to protect our farm and others like it by standing
    against the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act. Support a food system that
    has room for ethics and for responsible farms.
                Thank you for listening,

    Ted Domville,
    Elodie Farms,
    Rougemont, NC.
                                     ______

    Submitted Statement by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
      from North Carolina; on Behalf of Maggie Garrett, Vice President of
      Federal Affairs, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
                                    Animals
        On behalf of our more than two million supporters, the American
    Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) thanks you for
    the opportunity to submit written testimony to the House Agriculture
    Committee for the hearing titled ``An Examination of the Implications
    of Proposition 12.''
        California's Proposition 12 (Prop 12) is one of many popular,
    commonsense state animal protection laws that sets housing standards
    for egg, pork, and veal production and for egg, pork, and veal products
    sold into the state.\1\ Prop 12 and the fourteen other state laws that
    ban cruel confinement in some form have improved animal welfare and
    expanded market opportunities for American farmers. Companies of all
    sizes have enthusiastically met the demand for more humane cage and
    crate-free products, successfully increasing American consumers' access
    to products that better match their compassion for farm animals.
    Congress should support laws like Prop 12, not roll back decades of
    progress towards a more humane and sustainable food system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In 2010, California adopted AB 1437, which set cage-free
    housing standards for eggs sold into the state. The caged-egg sales ban
    went into effect in 2015. In 2018, the voters of California approved
    Proposition 12, which built upon the 2010 law by improving the welfare
    standards for laying hens, veal calves and gestating pigs, and
    implementing a sales ban on crated pork and veal, in addition to the
    existing caged-egg ban.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Accordingly, we urge Congress to reject any legislation that would
    invalidate Prop 12 and other state animal welfare protections,
    including the ``Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression'' (EATS) Act,
    which was introduced as H.R. 4417/S. 2019 in the 118th Congress, and
    the ``Food Security and Farm Protection Act'' (S. 1326), which is the
    identical, renamed Senate bill in the 119th Congress.
    The ASPCA
        As North America's first animal welfare organization, the ASPCA has
    been America's leading voice for vulnerable and victimized animals for
    more than 150 years. In furtherance of its mission to protect animals
    from cruelty, the ASPCA works to improve the lives of farm animals and
    build a more humane food system and is committed to increasing the
    presence and accessibility of higher-welfare products from independent
    farmers. We support the transition to and growth of higher-welfare
    farming systems through public policy, grant making, corporate policy
    and consumer education.
    American Consumers and Farmers Support State Animal Protection Laws
        Compassion for animals is a bipartisan, near universal value.
    Eighty percent of Americans are concerned about the negative impacts of
    industrial animal agriculture on animal welfare \2\ * and 80% support
    bans on the confinement of farm animals.\3\ Consumers are increasingly
    seeking out higher-welfare products that align with their compassion
    for animals and are urging lawmakers to support these higher-welfare
    systems. That's why 15 states have passed animal protection laws that
    prohibit certain cruel confinement systems and/or the sale of products
    coming from those systems.\4\ Within these states, the confinement laws
    are extremely popular. For example, 63% percent of California voters
    approved Proposition 12 and 78% of Massachusetts voters supported a
    similar measure in their state.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
    (2023). 2023 industrial animal agriculture opinion survey. https://
    www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/2023_industrial_ag_
    survey_results_report_052523_1.pdf.
        * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in
    Committee file.
        \3\ Data for Progress. (2022, August 3). Voters demand farm animal
    protections from both politicians and companies. https://
    www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2022/8/2/voters-demand-farm-animal-
    protections-from-both-politicians-and-companies.
        \4\ American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Farm
    animal confinement bans by state. ASPCA. https://www.aspca.org/
    improving-laws-animals/public-policy/farm-animal-confinement-bans.
        \5\ American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Farm
    animal confinement bans by state. ASPCA. https://www.aspca.org/
    improving-laws-animals/public-policy/farm-animal-confinement-bans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thousands of our nation's farmers have also shown support for state
    confinement bans. As explained by Missouri pig farmer, Hank Wurtz,
    ``Prop 12 is one of the best things, economically, that's happened to
    us in a very long time. That's good for American farmers.'' \6\ And Dan
    Honig, owner of the meat distribution company Happy Valley Meat
    Company, has expressed that Prop 12 has ``create[d] market demand for
    smaller, more nimble meat companies to fill.'' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Elkadi, N. (2024, November 1). Meet the farmers supporting Prop
    12 despite pork industry pushback. Investigate Midwest. Retrieved July
    22, 2025, from https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/11/01/meet-the-
    farmers-supporting-prop-12-despite-pork-industry-pushback/.
        \7\ Honig, D. (2025, March 3). Letters: EATS Act takes away
    opportunities; Benefits in Inflation Reduction Act. Centre Daily.
    https://www.centredaily.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/
    article278579999.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress Should Reject All Attempts to Overturn State Animal Protection
            Laws
        Unfortunately, there have been several attempts in Congress to
    invalidate state confinement laws like Prop 12, including the EATS Act,
    which is an overly broad bill that raises serious constitutional
    concerns. The bill would nullify existing state and local laws
    prohibiting the use of gestation crates and battery cages and other
    cruel practices, as well as more than 1,000 other state laws regulating
    public health and safety. The EATS Act, and similar provisions, would
    trigger a race to the bottom for animal welfare, threatening the right
    of states to pass laws within their borders and prohibiting states from
    passing regulations that go beyond Federal requirements, even in areas
    where no Federal standards currently exist.
        Congress should reject the EATS Act and all similar legislation
    that would overturn state confinement bans. In addition to erasing
    animal welfare protections, these proposals would hurt farmers and
    consumers, would infringe on state's rights, and face vast opposition.
    Overturning State Animal Protection Laws Would Hurt Farmers and
            Consumers
        Farmers and companies across the country have already invested in
    higher-welfare and more sustainable practices that are consistent with
    state confinement laws. Small- to mid-sized, independent farmers are
    better equipped to quickly pivot to meet the demand for more humane,
    cage/crate-free products, and many are already directly benefiting from
    the growing markets for these products across the country. Overturning
    state confinement laws would remove important market opportunities and
    financial incentives for farmers, disadvantaging those who have already
    made the investment in more humane animal housing systems. And
    simultaneously, it would further entrench the industrial confinement
    system that hurts animals, farmers, and consumers.
        American Grassfed Association President Carrie Balkcom has
    explained that ``the negative impact on our agricultural sector [from
    passing the EATS Act], especially for those dedicated to grass-fed and
    pasture-based production, could be devastating.'' \8\ And Maisie
    Ganzler of food service company Bon Appetit wrote the EATS Act is ``bad
    for my company, for consumers, and for farmers who have already
    invested in better systems to improve animal welfare.'' \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Balkom, C. (2025, July 15). Bolster American farmers, stop EATS
    Act [Opinion]. Lancaster Farming. https://www.lancasterfarming.com/
    farming-news/news/bolster-american-farmers-stop-eats-act-opinion/
    article_ff2e4024-9882-5735-9d08-9a417571aa65.html.
        \9\ Ganzler, M. (2023, November 18). Don't let Congress overturn
    California's animal welfare law [Opinion]. The Mercury News. https://
    www.mercurynews.com/2023/11/18/opinion-dont-let-congress-overturn-
    californias-animal-welfare-law/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Invalidating State Animal Protection Laws Flies in the Face of States'
            Rights
        The EATS Act and similar proposals threaten the right of all
    states--not just California--to pass laws within their own borders and
    prevent state and local governments from determining which agricultural
    products can be sold in their jurisdictions. They would erase popular,
    voter-approved state standards, forcing states to allow commerce in
    products they chose to ban. And they would threaten more than 1,000
    existing state public health and safety laws regulating agricultural
    products, risking the well-being of the very citizens they were put in
    place to protect.
    Stakeholders Oppose Overturning State Animal Protection Laws
        A broad set of stakeholders representing animal welfare,
    independent farmers and ranchers, state and local governments,
    environmental interests, unions, plus hundreds of bipartisan Federal
    and state legislators, individual farmers, veterinary professionals,
    and faith leaders oppose proposals like the EATS Act.\10\ In addition,
    a bipartisan group of more than 200 Federal legislators also oppose
    overturning state confinement bans. For example:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ List of Farms, Nonprofits, and Governmental Bodies Opposing
    the Food Security and Safety Act (aka EATS Act). https://
    docs.google.com/document/d/1eQgmpVGKskImh1NlPukU
    XDO76DS55CaJ/edit?tab=t.0.

       More than 20 retailers and meat processors signed a 2025
            letter to oppose the EATS Act because it ``counters consumer
            demand for common-sense production standards,'' ``would reverse
            progress and investments in animal welfare,'' and ``threatens
            the balance of power in U.S. Government.'' \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Salguero, M., et al. (2025, June 9). Letter from 30 Commercial
    Enterprises Opposing the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (aka
    EATS Act). https://assets.ctfassets.net/1yr7azz9gqt1/
    2dIa17DNIaBlxARtAQI2kR/5ddafa9fcee933cccf536eef77d93a06/2025_Food_Secu
    rity_and_Farm_Protection_Act_Opposition_Open_Letter_July.pdf.

       The National Conference of State Legislatures, the National
            Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities
            oppose the bill because, ``EATS would erode state and local
            sovereignty by prohibiting the establishment of laws and
            statutes that aim to protect our nation's food production and
            manufacturing.'' \12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023, September
    6). Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act). https://
    documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/State-Federal/
    EATS_Intergovernmental_Final.pdf.

       One hundred and eighty state and local elected officials
            from 40 states signed a letter opposing the EATS Act, saying it
            ``could upend that progress and stymie the ability of local
            governments, and of local residents by extension, to make
            policy that protects farmers, public health, consumers, animals
            and natural resources like land and water.'' \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Local Progress and State Innovation Exchange. (2024, April
    16). Letter from 180+ State and Local Elected Officials Urging Congress
    to Reject the EATS Act. https://localprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/
    2024/04/LP-Letter-Opposing-the-EATS-Act.pdf.

       In a 2023 letter, 16 House Republicans voiced opposition to
            the EATS Act, explaining the bill ``is at odds with our
            foundational Republican principles of states' rights, national
            sovereignty, and fair competition.'' \14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Garbarino, A., et al. (2023, October 5). Letter from 16 U.S.
    Representatives Opposing the EATS Act. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
    1DZoM8HAxdKHCQ05ZTZxJGdX4R604IqUv/view.

       A bipartisan group of more than 170 Federal legislators
            opposed the EATS Act on the grounds that it ``could harm
            America's small farmers, threaten numerous state laws and
            infringe on the fundamental rights of states to establish laws
            and regulations within their own borders.'' \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Feinstein, D., et al. (2024, March 8). Letter from 30 U.S.
    Senators Opposing the EATS Act. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
    1H6wjoTd2ZolCQO6m-x_ASuHbupPdKdRy/view; Blumenauer, E., et al. (2024,
    March 8). Letter from 172 U.S. Representatives Opposing the EATS Act.
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/176yaFCl1kKZG3bX-YNaJfCtUsSXzMWUz/view;
    Garbarino, A., et al. (2023, October 5). Letter from 16 U.S.
    Representatives Opposing the EATS Act; https://drive.google.com/file/d/
    1DZoM8HAxdKHCQ05ZTZxJGdX4R604IqUv/view; Luna, A., et al. (2024, March
    8). Letter From Ten U.S. Representatives Opposing the EATS Act.
    https://animalwellnessaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3-8-24-
    Letter-to-Ag-Committee-EATS-Act.pdf; Schiff, A., et al. (2025, July
    14). Letter from 32 Senators Opposing the Food Security and Farm
    Protection Act (aka EATS Act). https://www.schiff.senate.gov/wp-
    content/uploads/2025/07/July-2025-Prop-12-Q3-Letter.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion
        State confinement bans like Proposition 12 are popular, effective,
    commonsense laws that protect animals, independent farmers, and
    consumers. Legislative proposals to invalidate these laws are a
    solution in search of a problem. Accordingly, Congress should support
    Proposition 12 and reject any efforts that strip states of the ability
    to adopt humane housing standards for animals.
                                     ______

    Submitted Article by Hon. Donald G. Davis, a Representative in Congress
                              from North Carolina

    [https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/768181-most-pulled-
    pork-sandwiches-sold-in-8-hours]
    Most pulled pork sandwiches sold in 8 hours

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Who                                   What
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BBQ Fest on the Neuse                4,775 total number
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Where                                  When
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    United States (Kinston)              03 May 2025
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Age Restriction: Applications for this record title will only be
    accepted if the applicant is 16 years of age or over.
        The most pulled pork sandwiches sold in 8 hours is 4,775, and was
    achieved by BBQ Fest on the Neuse (USA) in Kinston, North Carolina,
    USA, on 3 May 2025.
        Whole-hog BBQ is the traditional form of BBQ in eastern North
    Carolina, where the pork is served chopped on a bun with a vinegar-
    based sauce. Sales of the sandwiches raised over $40,000 for the
    Kinston Foundation.
                                     ______

                              Submitted Questions
    Questions Submitted by Hon. John W. Rose, a Representative in Congress
            from Tennessee
    Response from Patrick Hord, Vice President, National Pork Producers
            Council; Chief Executive Officer, Hord Family Farms
        Question 1. Tennessee is home to nearly 280,000 hogs and
    approximately 2.5 million laying hens. It is important to understand
    the repercussions of not only Prop 12 but additional measures that
    could arise, threatening the two industries.
        Mr. Hord, if disastrous initiatives like Prop 12 are not headed off
    by Congressional action, what will pork and poultry industries
    experience in states like Tennessee, and how will this impact
    consumers?
        Answer. If other states are able to adopt regulations similar to or
    conflicting with Proposition 12, more producers will need to adopt more
    costly production practices to supply those markets. If this occurs,
    the retail price impacts that we've seen in California could become a
    reality in other states. Pork prices for covered products in California
    are still 20% higher due to Prop 12, even 2 years after implementation,
    and one study found that Prop 12 has led to lasting, structural changes
    in the California pork market.

              Study: https://www.arpc-ndsu.com/post/california-pork-market-
            responds-to-proposition-12-with-higher-prices-and-lower-
            consumption

        Question 2. Mr. Hord, with concerns of losing small and family
    farms, consolidation, and international trade if Prop 12 becomes the
    expansive norm, is there a possibility that the U.S. will see a
    significant downturn in the pork industry that could devastate
    producers and consumer access to pork products?
        Answer. Many studies have shown that Proposition 12 is associated
    with higher cost production practices at the farm level and at various
    other steps in the supply chain. While producers today may be able to
    secure the premium needed to offset the added costs of supplying Prop
    12-compliant hogs, if Prop 12 becomes the norm, producers across the
    country may be required to undertake costly changes without a premium.
    Imposing higher costs on the entire industry will likely result in some
    producers exiting the business or producing less, and higher pork
    prices would become a reality for consumers.
                                   attachment

    [https://www.arpc-ndsu.com/post/california-pork-market-responds-to-
    proposition-12-with-higher-prices-and-lower-consumption]
    California Pork Market Responds to Proposition 12 with Higher Prices
            and Lower Consumption
    July 23, 2025

    By Wuit Yi Lwin, Joseph Cooper, Seth Meyer, and Sandro Steinbach, ARPC
    NDSU
    Introduction
        In July 2023, California began enforcing Proposition 12, a voter-
    approved law that sets minimum space requirements for breeding sows and
    prohibits the sale of non-compliant pork within the state. The policy
    created new regulatory barriers for pork entering the California
    market, resulting in constrained supply and added compliance costs for
    producers. Drawing on high-frequency scanner-level data from July 2022
    to June 2025, this analysis finds that Proposition 12 has led to
    lasting changes in California's pork market. Retail prices for key pork
    cuts have increased sharply relative to national trends, while the
    state's share of national pork consumption has declined. The results
    point to a structural shift in consumer behavior and pricing dynamics,
    with effects that have persisted over a 2 year period.
    Background on Proposition 12
        Proposition 12 was approved by California voters in 2018 but faced
    several delays and legal challenges before full enforcement began in
    January 2024. The law sets minimum confinement standards for breeding
    sows, and extends those standards to any pork sold in the state,
    regardless of its origin. This retail-level enforcement mechanism
    effectively restricts California's pork supply to producers that meet
    the state's animal welfare standards. Given California's size as a
    consumption market, these restrictions carry implications for both in-
    state prices and national supply chains. The enforcement of Proposition
    12 thus provides a unique opportunity to study how retail regulations
    influence food markets through price and volume channels.
    Retail Price Effects
        Scanner data show that California retail pork prices increased
    significantly following the implementation of Proposition 12. The most
    pronounced changes were observed for loins and ribs, which shifted from
    below-average prices to substantial premiums relative to national
    benchmarks. For example, the average retail price for loins in
    California rose from a four percent discount before implementation to a
    26 percent premium afterward; a 30 percentage point swing. Similar
    changes occurred for ribs, bacon, and shoulders. These price effects
    persisted across the full 2 year post-policy period, with no evidence
    of attenuation.

    Table 1. Average Changes in California Retail Pork Price Premiums Due to
                                 Proposition 12
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pre vs. Post
                           Pre-Policy        Post-Policy      Policy Change
            Cut              Premium           Premium         (percentage
                            (percent)         (percent)          points)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Loins             ^4               +26               +30
             Bacon                  +6               +20               +14
              Ribs                  ^7               +14               +21
         Shoulders                  +1               +15               +14
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.

        Weekly price premium data also show sustained increases beginning
    in mid-2023. Loins and ribs, in particular, display sharp upward shifts
    in relative pricing immediately following policy enforcement. The lack
    of price convergence over time suggests that supply adjustments have
    not been sufficient to reverse the initial impact of Proposition 12.
    Figure 1. California Retail Price Premiums Before and After Proposition
            12

                 (a) Loins                            (b) Bacon

                  (c) Ribs                            (d) Loins

              Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
    Changes in Pork Consumption
        Higher prices and constrained supply led to a measurable reduction
    in California's pork consumption. The state's share of national fresh
    pork volume declined from 8.8 percent before Proposition 12 to 7.5
    percent afterward. The largest declines occurred in ribs and loins--the
    same products that experienced the steepest price increases. These
    shifts were not temporary. Consumption volumes remained lower
    throughout the entire 2 year post-enforcement period, even during
    seasonal spikes such as holidays. The evidence suggests a durable shift
    in purchasing behavior rather than a transitory market response.

       Table 2. Changes in California Market Shares Due to Proposition 12
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pre vs. Post
                           Pre-Policy        Post-Policy      Policy Change
          Product         Market Share      Market Share       (percentage
                            (percent)         (percent)          points)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Aggregate                 8.8               7.5              ^1.3
                  Loins            6.8               5.0              ^1.8
             Bacon                 8.0               7.1              ^0.9
              Ribs                11.8               9.2              ^2.6
         Shoulders                 9.2               7.9              ^1.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.

        Detailed product-level data confirm these trends. California's
    share of national rib consumption fell by 2.6 percentage points, while
    loin volume declined by 1.8 percentage points. Although the percentage
    declines for bacon and shoulders were smaller, they followed the same
    general pattern.
    Figure 2. California's Share of U.S. Pork Consumption for the Top Four
            Pork Products

                 (a) Loins                            (b) Bacon

                  (c) Ribs                          (d) Shoulders

              Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
    Robustness: Sausage as a Comparison Product
        To isolate the effects of Proposition 12 from broader market
    dynamics, the analysis also examines pork sausage, which is exempt from
    the policy. Sausage prices and consumption in California remained
    stable over the study period. The price premium rose only slightly, and
    volume shares remained nearly flat. This finding provides further
    evidence that the observed changes for regulated cuts were indeed
    driven by Proposition 12 and not by unrelated market forces.
    Figure 3. Price Premiums and Consumption Volumes for Pork Sausages in
            California

             (a) Price Premium                   (b) Purchase Volume

              Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
    Econometric Estimates
        A difference-in-differences econometric model confirms the
    descriptive results. Controlling for national trends, retail pork
    prices in California rose by an average of 16.5 percent across all pork
    products following policy implementation. For the four regulated cuts,
    the average increase was even higher, at approximately 23.7 percent. At
    the same time, purchase volumes declined by 20.9 percent for these
    products, with the largest drop observed in loin consumption.
        These estimates remain consistent across the full post-enforcement
    period and support the conclusion that Proposition 12 produced
    statistically significant and policy-specific effects on both prices
    and volumes.
    Figure 4. Econometric Effects of Proposition 12 on Retail Pork Prices
            and Purchase Volumes in California

             (a) Price Premium                   (b) Purchase Volume

              Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
    Conclusion
        Two years after Proposition 12 enforcement began, the California
    pork market has undergone a clear structural transformation. Retail
    prices for regulated pork products remain well above national levels,
    and the state's share of national pork consumption has contracted
    across all major product categories. These effects are persistent,
    suggesting that consumers and supply chains have adjusted to a new
    market equilibrium shaped by regulatory constraints. While California's
    goals focused on animal welfare standards, the economic impacts
    underscore the broader trade-offs that can arise when retail-level
    supply restrictions are imposed in large markets.

              Lwin, W.Y., Cooper, J., Meyer, S., & Steinbach, S. (2025).
            California retail pork prices and consumption two years into
            the Proposition 12 implementation. ARPC White Paper 2025-03,
            Agricultural Risk Policy Center, North Dakota State University.
            https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.362671.

              Note: The analysis, findings, and conclusions represent the
            interpretation of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
            the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Circana, or
            any affiliated institution.
    Response from Matthew Schuiteman, District 3 Member, Board of
            Directors, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Co-Owner, AJS Farms
        Question. Mr. Schuiteman, in your written testimony, you mentioned
    the great strides the pork industry has made over time in developing
    the current standard for environmentally friendly, safe, and humane
    housing. Will you elaborate on the changes the industry has adopted
    over the last 20 years and the vigilant practices that are incorporated
    in operations today?
        Answer. I'll touch on three different areas in my answers below.

      a.  Manure Management

          i.  The advent of site specific technology and fertilization has
                helped our in-
                    dustry make some really big strides in learning how
                best to manage the
                    fertilizer that our pigs generate. Testing our manure
                helps us understand
                    what nutrients are available for our crop, and then
                soil tests help us de-
                    termine where best to place that manure. The end result
                is much less
                    waste and fertilizer runoff, and increased crop
                production. Swine manure
                    is proven time and again to be one of the best sources
                of nutrition to a
                    growing crop.

      b.  Building Environment

          i.  Computer thermostat technology ensures that every day in a
                pig barn is
                    almost identical. Pigs have a consistent and
                comfortable environment to
                    grow and thrive. Slatted floors allow the manure to
                fall into a deep pit
                    below the pigs, giving the pigs a clean, comfortable
                place to lay and rest.

      c.  Feed Management

          i.  Feed management ensures little feed wasted in total, but also
                ensures effi-
                    cient use of nutrients. Research has led us to develop
                rations that target
                    nutrients to what the pigs actually need. Phosphorous
                used to be fed in
                    excess to growing pigs resulting in too much
                phosphorous being applied
                    to our land as manure. Now phosphorous is much more
                targeted in feed
                    rations, resulting in a phosphorous load in manure that
                is better for the
                    environment overall. In addition, feeder technology
                helps us keep feed
                    waste to a minimum.

                                      [all]