7/31/2019 Pew Environment Group Urges House of Representatives to Oppose Efforts to Derail USDA Rules to Undermine St
1/3
July17,2012
DearMemberofCongress:
IamwritingonbehalfofthePewCharitableTruststoexpressourconcernabouttwospecific
provisions inH.R. 6083, the FederalAgriculture RiskManagement and ReformAct better
knownas the2012FarmBill. The languagecontained in thebill reportedby theAgriculture
Committeewouldpreemptmoststateor localeffortstoprotectthepublicsfoodsupplyand
the environment, and would further weaken the already minimal safeguards provided to
ensure that farmers are protected from the unfair contracting practices of large meat
processingcompanies.
H.R.6083wouldpreemptstategovernments.
Sec.12302
of
the
bill
prohibits
state
and
local
governments
from
imposing
astandard
or
conditionontheproductionormanufactureofanyagriculturalproductsoldorofferedforsale
in interstate commerce. Based on the bills definition of agricultural product, this broad
languagewouldrobstatesoftheirhistoricpowertoprotectthehealthandwelfareoftheirown
citizensregardinganyagricultural,horticultural,viticultural,anddairyproducts,livestockand
poultry,bees,forestproducts,fishandshellfish,andanyproductsthereof,includingprocessed
andmanufacturedproducts,andany and allproducts raisedorproducedon farms and any
processedormanufacturedproductthereof.
Thisprovisionwasclearlyadoptedwithoutconsiderationfor its impactsonthepublic,and its
effectwouldbe topreempthundredsof state lawsand regulations,enacted inmany cases
withoverwhelming
support
from
state
voters.
Just
afew
examples
of
states
that
would
be
impactedinclude
Alaskahashadalawonthebookssince2005thatrequiresthelabelingofallfarmraised
halibut, salmon,or sablefish,even in restaurants.Alaska also requires labels for genetically
modifiedfarmedfish. Sincefishareconsideredagriculturalproducts,andmandatorylabelingis
a condition ofmanufacture or production, these lawswould now be preempted, aswould
Washingtons requirement for labeling farmraised salmon sold in retail andwholesale fish
marketsandtheArkansasandLouisianarequirementsforlabelingfarmedcatfishsoldinretailandwholesalemarkets.
CaliforniasSafeDrinkingWaterandToxicEnforcementAct,betterknownasProposition
65,would be seriously undermined by this legislation. Proposition 65 requires the State to
publishalistofchemicalsknowntocausecancerorbirthdefectsorotherreproductiveharm.
Thislist,whichmustbeupdatedatleastonceayear,hasgrowntoincludeapproximately800
chemicals since itwas first published in 1987. Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify
Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their
homesorworkplaces,orthatarereleasedintotheenvironment.Byprovidingthisinformation,
7/31/2019 Pew Environment Group Urges House of Representatives to Oppose Efforts to Derail USDA Rules to Undermine St
2/3
Proposition65enablesCalifornians tomake informeddecisionsaboutprotecting themselves
fromexposuretothesechemicals. Becausemandatory labelinghasbeen interpretedtobea
conditionofmanufacture,everythingcoveredunderProposition65couldbeaffectedbythis
provision.
Californias law banning the sale of eggs from batterycage operations passed by
landslidemargins in thestate legislaturewouldbe renderednullandvoid regardlessof its
supportamongthestatesvoters.
Illinois,Indiana,Kentucky,Maine,Michigan,Minnesota,NewYork,Ohio,Pennsylvania,Vermont,andWisconsinallhave laws that impose restrictionson firewood transported intothestate. NewYork,forexample,requiresimportedfirewoodtobeheattreatedtokillinvasive
pestsliketheAsianlonghornbeetleandemeraldashborer,whichdecimatelocalforests. Ifthe
currentFarmBill languagebecomes law, these stateswillhave to sacrifice their forests toa
misguidedlegislativeeffort.
Iowa currently bans the sale of rawmilk. Under the committees bill, Iowa could nolongerbanrawmilkfromothermilkproducingstatessuchasArizona,California,Connecticut,
Idaho,Maine,NewHampshire,NewMexico,Nevada,Vermont,SouthCarolina,Pennsylvania,
andWashington.
Maryland is the firststate in thecountry toban thepreviouslycommonuseor saleof
commercial poultry food that contains arsenic. Should the House Farm Bill become law,
Marylandwouldnolongerbeabletoprotectitscitizensfromthispractice.
Inaddition,theproposedlegislationwouldeffectivelyrenderallballotinitiativesonagricultural
productsvoid
iftheir
goal
is
to
protect
the
health
and
welfare
of
the
citizens
of
one
state
from
the actionsof an industry in another state. Weurge you to support efforts todelete this
sectionfromthelegislationpriortoconsiderationbythefullHouse.
H.R.6083weakenseffortstoprotectindependentfarmers.
Title XII of the committees bill contains a provision thatwould preventUSDA from taking
furtheractiononpreviouslyproposedprotectionsforsmallandmidsizelivestockproducers. It
also repeals critical new protections for contract poultry and hog growers who may be
compelled bymeatprocessing companies tomake huge capital investments in unnecessary
upgradestotheiroperations.WhilefundingformanyoftheUSDAproposalswasrestrictedby
theFY2012appropriationsmeasure,severalimportantprovisions,includingtherestrictionson
unnecessarycapitalinvestments,werefinalized.
Overtheobjectionsofmorethan100farmorganizations,includingtheAmericanFarmBureau
FederationandtheNationalFarmersUnion,thisoverrideofthenewruleswasincludedinthe
FY2013 appropriationsmeasure, and now has also been included in the committeepassed
versionoftheFarmBill.Thisamendment, inourview, ignorestheperilousfinancialsituation
facedbymanycontractfarmers.
7/31/2019 Pew Environment Group Urges House of Representatives to Oppose Efforts to Derail USDA Rules to Undermine St
3/3
Today,contractfarmersholdhugemortgagesonlargechickengrowinghousesandshoulderall
liabilityformanagingthetonsofwasteproducedbutoftenbearthebruntofindustryeffortsto
controlcosts. Processorsmaydemandthatfarmersmakespecificcostlycapitalimprovements
totheirbuildingsandequipmentasaconditionofreceivinganimalstoraise,butgenerallypay
noneof
these
costs.
The
USDA
rulemaking
made
it
clear
that
processors
could
not
demand
unnecessaryupgradestohousesthatareingoodworkingorderandthatprocessorswithplans
tocloseorcurtailprocessingoperationscouldbefoundtobeinviolationoffederallawifthey
demandedsuchupgradesdespitethoseplans. This language repealinga regulationthatwas
finalizedafterafivemonthcommentperiodandreviewofmorethan60,000commentsshould
bestrickenfromthebill.
WelookforwardtoworkingwithyoutoensurethatH.R.6083doesnotunderminetheability
ofstatestoprotectthepublicortheneedsofhardworkingfarmersacrossthecountry.
Sincerely,
KarenSteuer
Director,GovernmentRelations
PewEnvironmentGroup
2028878818
Top Related