Mississippi has no fewer than 25 state code provisions governing the importation of livestock, plants and commodities like rice. These rules are intended to protect the health and safety of Mississippians by ensuring that animals are free of influenza, brucellosis and other common diseases.
The Food Security and Farm Protection (FSFPA) Act, pending in Congress, would federally preempt states’ ability to maintain such laws, putting at risk residents of any state with the gall to promulgate rules governing their agricultural standards and practices.
FSFPA is the latest incarnation of the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act. Like EATS, it’s a Washington power grab that seeks to overturn state farm animal welfare standards by taking a scythe to the country’s legal sovereignty.
I don’t agree with many of California’s policies, which are the main targets of these bills. The state’s Proposition 12 prohibits the in-state sale of products derived from animals raised in extreme confinement, a proscription that reflects evolving consumer preferences but is also bad for Big Ag’s bottom line.
However, I more strongly disagree with giving foreign-owned conglomerates the ability to strike down state laws they don’t like. That’s precisely what FSFPA does.
Specifically, it prevents states from “imposing certain standards or conditions on the preharvest production of agricultural products in another state.” And it creates “a private right of action to challenge state or local regulations relating to agricultural goods sold in interstate commerce.”
If you’re wondering who has the resources and wherewithal to take states to court, the answer is big, foreign-owned corporations like China-owned Smithfield Foods, which happens to be America’s largest pork producer. They’re most upset with California’s meat production standards, and they’re most likely to also sue states like Mississippi when our laws affect their bottom lines.
Already, large corporate interests hold too much dominance over America’s food production. Big meatpackers like Cargill and Tyson set the fees that ranchers receive for their products and the prices that consumers pay at the grocery store. And the only solutions that some politicians put forward are little more than giveaways to these companies at the expense of small farmers and state sovereignty.
Recently, after a group of producers from the Organization for Competitive Markets visited the Department of Justice in Washington, President Trump ordered an investigation into the nation’s dominant meatpacking companies for collusion and price-fixing. It’s a critical step in breaking up the monopolization of power over our domestic beef market, and it’s a great example of a solution that will actually help struggling citizens, not bills like FSFPA, which sacrifice constitutional federalism for the sake of the biggest foreign conglomerates.
This isn’t about California or even about farm animal welfare. It’s about self-governance. In Mississippi, we have more than 30,000 farms, many of which are small, family-run operations. These producers follow state-specific rules and regulations that make sense for our economy, our land and our people. They do not need the federal government stepping in to let outside interests rewrite those rules.
If Congress wants to help, it should focus on breaking up meatpacking monopolies, on permanently banning foreign ownership of farmland, and on bolstering domestic capacity by giving young and aspiring farmers the ability to enter the market. The last thing they should do is give foreign entities a legal loophole to undermine our state laws from within.
It remains to be seen whether FSFPA will gain traction in the 119th Congress; we still have a whole year left. However, if past performance is any indication, it seems likely that politicians will continue to side with adversaries over domestic farmers. It’s time to move forward with policies that put citizens and small farmers first.