In a press release issued this week, Drummond’s office emphasized that the proposed legislation could shield farmers and ranchers across the nation from what they term “radical anti-agriculture regulations” emanating from California.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond has added his voice to a collective appeal for the passage of the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act by U.S. Congressional leadership. In a recent press release, Drummond’s office conveyed that this proposed legislation seeks to prevent what he views as burdensome regulations from California impacting farmers and ranchers nationwide.
“As a fifth-generation rancher myself” Drummond said, he finds it concerning that California’s regulations might extend to Oklahoma’s agricultural community. He expressed a strong commitment to safeguarding the autonomy of individual states to govern agriculture without external influence.
Drummond, along with 15 other state attorneys general, has sent a letter to Congressional leaders, advocating for the approval of the EATS Act. Their stance is rooted in their belief that recent legislation in California, specifically Proposition 12, which mandates stringent regulations for out-of-state pork producers aiming to sell in California, could lead to increased costs for consumers and potentially the closure of businesses unable to comply with these new standards.
The proponents of the EATS Act argue that such federal intervention is necessary to protect farmers and ranchers from what they perceive as undue restrictions on trade and commerce across state lines.
Meanwhile the opponents argue the potential consequences of the EATS Act are far-reaching; it could endanger not only Proposition 12 but also numerous state and local regulations concerning animal welfare, food safety, and public health. Despite previous failures, the renewed push against Proposition 12 could propel the EATS Act forward. The Act, modeled after the controversial King Amendment, aims to override state-level agricultural regulations, forcing states to market products produced in inhumane or unsafe conditions.
While prospects for the EATS Act remain uncertain, its potential passage would have broad implications. Even amidst industry support, including from companies like Hormel and Tyson adopting improved animal living conditions, opposition remains due to concerns about infringing on states’ rights. Public sentiment also leans toward laws like Proposition 12, with surveys indicating substantial support for more humane treatment of farmed animals and the regulation of agricultural practices.
COMMENTS