Post Punk Kitchen Forum

The [House Agriculture Committee] ha[s] adopted a far-reaching amendment that infuriated animal welfare groups, delighted the pork and beef lobbies and broke more than a few eggs. Where it goes next in the context of the larger farm bill debate, no one truly knows. But scores of state laws could be impacted and it surely reaches well beyond its initial target: sunny California.

Most simply the language would bar any state from excluding the marketing of “agricultural products” if they have been grown in a manner “pursuant” to federal law and the laws of the state or locality from which they come.

Proponents argue that this is needed to allow the free flow of farm commerce across state lines. But for animal welfare groups, it’s a huge Catch 22, since the same committee continues to resist any new federal standards for raising livestock — preferring to leave the issue to farmers and individual states.

California is a pivotal battleground because it is both a giant producer and market. In the case of animal agriculture, the state is recognized as a leader in demanding better protection for livestock, especially since a 2008 ballot referendum that required the egg industry to provide more running room for its hens.

But when the California legislature followed up by enacting a law demanding that all eggs sold in the state meet the new standards, it ruffled feathers as far away as Iowa — a major egg exporter. And Iowa Rep. Steve King, now a senior Republican on the Agriculture panel, began beating the drum for Congress to take a stand.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/a ... z2Tc5Rd9Uy

This amendment basically provides that no state can prohibit the sale of agricultural products produced in a way that would violate its own laws if the product was legally produced in its state of origin. If it passes, it will mean that, when it comes to agriculture, Congress will have guaranteed a race to the regulatory bottom. If your state wants to pass a law limiting what Big Ag can do — to protect workers, animals, food safety, the environment, whatever — and those regulations might cost producers anything at all (as better practices tend to do), your state cannot do anything about products from other, less progressive, states undercutting the prices of local producers. Republicans otherwise devoted to states’ rights will have pulled the rug out from under states (well, out from under progressive states, anyway), requiring them to either embrace the lowest common denominator when it comes to regulating Big Ag, or to undercut the competitiveness of its own producers.

What’s going on here?

Well, it’s pretty much all about chickens.