|
 The House Agriculture Committee added language to its version of
the farm bill earlier this year that says a state cannot impose
certain production standards on agricultural products sold in
interstate commerce. The provision, authored by Rep. Steve King,
R-Iowa, is aimed at a California law that will require all eggs sold
in the state to come from hens that inhabit cages in which they can
spread their wings — a major burden for egg producers in Iowa and
other states who don't use large cages and still want to sell eggs
to the lucrative California market. The law goes into effect in
2015.
"Bottom line of it is no state should be allowed to regulate
production in other states," King said at a meeting of House-Senate
negotiators last month.
But opponents say that depending on how the language is interpreted,
the provision could lead to challenges of dozens of other state laws
— including some aimed at food safety, fire safety and basic
consumer protections.
Concern over King's language has the potential to threaten the
entire farm bill, which congressional leaders are hoping to finish
by the end of the year. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., chairwoman of
the Senate Agriculture Committee, said she has "great concern" about
King's language, which is not in the Senate version of the farm
bill. Led by the Humane Society of the United States, a wide range
of groups including the National Association of State Legislatures,
the National Fraternal Order of Police and the Consumer Federation
of America are all lobbying against the measure.
King's language cites the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which
prohibits discrimination against interstate commerce. He says
California's law does just that — imposing its own standards on how
producers in Iowa and elsewhere do their business.
Concern about other laws that could be affected is just a ploy by
animal rights activists — or, as he calls them, the "vegan lobby" —
to discredit his provision, King said.
King said he believes the provision is written narrowly enough so
that the other laws would not be affected. As written, the provision
would not allow a state to impose "a standard or condition on the
production or manufacture of any agricultural product sold" if the
product is manufactured out of state and those standards go beyond
federal law and the law of the state in which it is produced.
Still, some groups worry the language is not specific enough and
could apply broadly:
-
Fire safety groups say the language potentially could apply to
fire-safe cigarettes that have a reduced propensity to burn when
left unattended. Because tobacco is an agricultural product, they
worry that state laws requiring sale of these fire-safe cigarettes
could be affected if challenged in court.
-
Food safety groups say they are concerned that King's amendment
could threaten laws like California's statute requiring that oysters
from the Gulf of Mexico be pasteurized, a measure that has helped
reduce illnesses in that state.
-
The attorneys general of Arkansas and Mississippi have written
letters to Capitol Hill opposing the amendment. "Due to the
provision's vagueness and overly broad language, it is unclear
exactly what impact the King amendment could have on our state's
ability to enforce its own laws and to protect Arkansas businesses
and consumers," wrote Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a
Democrat.
[to top of second column] |
The genesis of the amendment is a longtime fight between agriculture
and the Humane Society, which has pushed states to pass animal
welfare laws. In addition to egg farmers, other animal producers —
particularly hog producers, many of whom use confinement crates for
sows — are trying to fend off efforts by the Humane Society and
other animal rights groups. King's home state of Iowa is the top
pork-producing state, and some farmers worry they could lose their
operations if forced to make the expensive crate changes those
groups have sought.
The Humane Society is aggressively lobbying against the King
amendment. Wayne Pacelle, the group's president, calls the amendment
"an enterprise-level threat to the animal welfare movement."
When writing legislation, "you need to judge the worst-case
scenarios to judge the worthiness of a proposal," Pacelle says of
the possible impact on other laws.
Though powerful agriculture groups have lined up in support, as have
House Agriculture Committee leaders, the amendment has bipartisan
opposition — notably from some Republicans who believe it attacks
states' rights.
"Just trying to attack the Humane Society I think is very
shortsighted," said Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif. "You don't throw out
the Constitution because you want to attack one certain group."
King argues he is fighting for the right of states like Iowa to
produce eggs and other products as they see fit, and to be able to
sell them in a free market. He says the examples of affected laws
are overblown, and would not apply because those laws don't dictate
specifically how an agricultural product is to be produced.
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of
Law, said he's not so sure, adding that the law could be "subject to
multiple interpretations."
"It says it's based on the Commerce Clause, but I don't think that's
the end of the story," he said.
[Associated
Press; MARY CLARE JALONICK]
Associated Press writer
Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this report.
Follow Mary Clare
Jalonick on Twitter at
http://twitter.com/mcjalonick.
Copyright 2013 The Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
