News

EATS Act now faces opposition in the Senate

A bill that would block California’s Proposition 12 is facing more pushback in Congress.

A bipartisan group of senators have sent a letter to Ag Committee leadership saying the Ending Agriculture Trade Suppression (EATS) Act would hurt small farmers and infringe on states’ rights.

Congresswoman Ashley Hinson sponsors the bill and tells Brownfield the Senators’ claims are not factual. “I think if you read the substance of that letter it’s based on a lot of myths coming out about the EATS Act,” she said. “A lot of the misinformation is around benefiting China. It does not.”

The Iowa Republican introduced the measure in response to California’s Proposition 12 law and says it creates a slippery slope by allowing states to regulate ag practices. “I think Prop 12 was bad policy to begin with,” Hinson said. “The EATS Act is the proper congressional fix to defend the Interstate Commerce Clause.”

The Senators who oppose the EATS Act said it should not be included in the 2023 Farm Bill.

• 

  How is it that the communist state of californiction thinks they have a right to dictate to the rest of the states on how to properly raise their livestock. This is a states rights issue and the conditions in californication are not the same as other states. The fact that a federal bill has to be developed to protect states rights is clear evidence of federal over-reach and tyranny by the communist party of californica The opposition by the senate is clear evidence that there are many communists in the US Senate, who could and should be impeached and charged with TREASON for failure to uphold their sworn oath to the US Constitution. States should enact their own legislation to protect their rights and ignore any such federal overeach.

  Reply
• 

  How is it that anyone believes they have the right to treat sentient beings in whatever way is most profitable? To deny even meager improvements like bans on gestation crates and battery-cages? There is no “proper” way to conduct atrocity – the utter disregard & objectification of fellow feeling creatures whom some people can see only as “livestock.” Proponents use political “rules” and “concepts” because they have no moral grounding from which to argue. Deciding between profit-and-production brutality and ethical advancements should not be a choice. Cruel exploitation is not a “right.” And if you want to talk politics, do you remember that slavery was also a so-called “states right issue”? Pointing this out does not equate the scenarios. But, politically speaking, there are institutional, exploitative similarities, and to look past that is to be blind.

  The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression bill uses words like “suppression” in an attempt to veil the real victims. And not only would millions of animal lives face even worse conditions, EATS would also remove basic protections for farm workers. Opposing the EATS act should not be about partisan politics or irrelevant ideology. It should be about upholding the bare minimum of moral progress. In reality, the issue is not state versus federal power – turning it into that is a political facade designed to obscure and distract. And it isn’t about “supporting local farmers.” These are factory farms we’re talking about, in which a handful of unhappy workers oversee thousands of cramped, miserable animals. No. At its core, the EATS bill is about lifting even small restrictions on exploitation in the name of industry-driven greed.

  Reply