|
 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 — imposes 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 allow states to regulate their own businesses
but would prevent states from imposing "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 foodborne illnesses in that state.
-
Law enforcement groups say they worry that the language could allow for fewer
standards on puppy mills. "Animals will be at greater risk of mistreatment," the
National Fraternal Order of Police wrote in a letter to King.
[to top of second column] |
-
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.
- The National Conference of State Legislatures says the language
would "pre-empt" state agricultural laws designed to protect the
safety and well-being of farmland, waterways, forests and people.
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. |
