New Report Documents Threats to States’ Rights, U.S. Sovereignty, and American Pig Farmers from Rebranded 'EATS Act'

Animal wellness organizations issue report ahead of House Agriculture Committee hearing that’s a show-and-tell opportunity for National Pork Producers Council

WASHINGTON, DC, UNITED STATES, July 22, 2025 /EINPresswire.com/ -- In advance of a House Agriculture Committee hearing devoid of any witnesses who favor states’ rights or are concerned about inordinate influence of China over the U.S. pork sector, Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy today released a science-based report detailing a long set of defects in the so-called “Food Security and Farm Protection Act” (FSFP), S.1326 — a retread of the widely condemned and politically unpopular Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.

The report, “Rebranded EATS Act Eliminates Nation’s Most Important Farm Animal Welfare Laws,” presents seven core findings that dismantle the central claims of EATS Act proponents. It notes that NPPC’s legislative, legal, and political arguments have been rejected by Congress in two prior farm bills (2014 and 2018), dismantled by the federal courts (19 straight losses for NPPC and its surrogates), and dismissed by voters who have passed five of five ballot measures on gestation-crate confinement by double-digit margins. The report is available here.

“This rebranded EATS Act is a move by the pork industry’s trade association to destroy the livelihoods of thousands of pig farmers who have invested in more humane housing systems and to give a leg up to foreign-controlled conglomerates who appear desperate to unwind state laws like Proposition 12 and Question 3 upheld as constitutional by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action. “After losing in Congress, at the Supreme Court, and in the court of public opinion, the NPPC has been trying to sell lawmakers a fake crisis and a false fix. This report exposes their political fraud.”

Key Findings from the Report:

1. The EATS Act subverts state sovereignty: Voters approved Prop 12 and Question 3 in landslide votes. The federal courts have repeatedly upheld those laws, including the U.S. Supreme Court in NPPC v. Ross.

2. EATS Act will expand foreign control of U.S.-based pork production: Two foreign companies dominate the American pork sector, with the Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods controlling a quarter of production. The EATS Act would give Smithfield room to grow, perhaps even with the 30-story, high-rise pig factories dominating pork production in China.

3. No forced compliance by farmers: There are more than enough compliant producers to meet demand in California and Massachusetts for the states’ needs for gestation-crate-free pork. Contrary to the overheated rhetoric of NPPC and other boosts of EATS, Prop 12 has not, and will not, force a single farmer to change production practices.

4. Gestation crates broadly perceived as inhumane: Over 60 major food retailers — from McDonald’s to Kroger to Costco — have publicly declared that gestation crates are “inhumane.” Voters have approved every ballot measure on gestation-crate confinement by double-digit margins.

5. Prop 12 has not caused pork prices to spike: Economic data show Prop 12 has not increased pork prices nationally. Claims of national price shocks and California pork shortages have been thoroughly debunked by agricultural economists and industry data.

6. The EATS Act would accelerate consolidation: By undercutting Prop 12, Congress would reward foreign-owned mega-producers and jeopardize the viability of thousands of U.S. family farmers who have already invested in more humane systems.

7. No other commodity trade groups actively support EATS: Neither the egg nor veal industries — with Prop 12 including in-state standards on both sectors — support the EATS Act. The pork industry is isolated among agricultural commodity groups. The industry also has a major schism, with thousands of products opposing the EATS Act and treating it as a threat to their livelihoods.

Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., David Valadao, R-Calif., Andrew Garbarino, D-N.Y., Nancy Mace, R-S.C., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., are circulating a letter to other House Republicans in opposition to the EATS Act. In the 118th Congress, 26 Republican House lawmakers signed letters opposing the EATS Act, while 170 Democrats signed similar letters. Earlier in July, 30 Democratic senators and two Independents signed a letter to Senate Agriculture Committee leaders urging them not to include the EATS Act or any derivative of it in the Farm Bill or any other legislative package. AWA and CHE urge lawmakers to reject S.1326 and any similar efforts in the House, and to allow American consumers, retailers, and farmers — not foreign conglomerates — to shape the future of food and farming in the United States.

The report was written by Jim Keen, DVM, Ph.D, Col. Thomas Pool, DVM, MPH, and Svetlana Feigin, Ph.D. Dr. Keen is a former USDA research scientist at the National Meat Animal Research Center in Kearney, Neb., and a rancher. Colonel Pool is former head of the U.S. Army Veterinary Command and a rancher and farmer from southwest Oklahoma. Dr. Feigin is a researcher and scientist from New Zealand, a nation which has embraced extensive animal agriculture and does not conduct intensive confinement.

Wayne Pacelle
Animal Wellness Action
+1 443-865-3600
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Instagram
Facebook
YouTube