7/31/2019 Pew Environment Group Urges House of Representatives to Oppose Efforts to Derail USDA Rules to Undermine St

1/3

July17,2012

DearMemberofCongress:

IamwritingonbehalfofthePewCharitableTruststoexpressourconcernabouttwospecific

provisions inH.R. 6083, the FederalAgriculture RiskManagement and ReformAct better

knownas the2012FarmBill. The languagecontained in thebill reportedby theAgriculture

Committeewouldpreemptmoststateor localeffortstoprotectthepublicsfoodsupplyand

the environment, and would further weaken the already minimal safeguards provided to

ensure that farmers are protected from the unfair contracting practices of large meat

processingcompanies.

H.R.6083wouldpreemptstategovernments.

Sec.12302

of

the

bill

prohibits

state

and

local

governments

from

imposing

astandard

or

conditionontheproductionormanufactureofanyagriculturalproductsoldorofferedforsale

in interstate commerce. Based on the bills definition of agricultural product, this broad

languagewouldrobstatesoftheirhistoricpowertoprotectthehealthandwelfareoftheirown

citizensregardinganyagricultural,horticultural,viticultural,anddairyproducts,livestockand

poultry,bees,forestproducts,fishandshellfish,andanyproductsthereof,includingprocessed

andmanufacturedproducts,andany and allproducts raisedorproducedon farms and any

processedormanufacturedproductthereof.

Thisprovisionwasclearlyadoptedwithoutconsiderationfor its impactsonthepublic,and its

effectwouldbe topreempthundredsof state lawsand regulations,enacted inmany cases

withoverwhelming

support

from

state

voters.

Just

afew

examples

of

states

that

would

be

impactedinclude

Alaskahashadalawonthebookssince2005thatrequiresthelabelingofallfarmraised

halibut, salmon,or sablefish,even in restaurants.Alaska also requires labels for genetically

modifiedfarmedfish. Sincefishareconsideredagriculturalproducts,andmandatorylabelingis

a condition ofmanufacture or production, these lawswould now be preempted, aswould

Washingtons requirement for labeling farmraised salmon sold in retail andwholesale fish

marketsandtheArkansasandLouisianarequirementsforlabelingfarmedcatfishsoldinretailandwholesalemarkets.

CaliforniasSafeDrinkingWaterandToxicEnforcementAct,betterknownasProposition

65,would be seriously undermined by this legislation. Proposition 65 requires the State to

publishalistofchemicalsknowntocausecancerorbirthdefectsorotherreproductiveharm.

Thislist,whichmustbeupdatedatleastonceayear,hasgrowntoincludeapproximately800

chemicals since itwas first published in 1987. Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify

Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their

homesorworkplaces,orthatarereleasedintotheenvironment.Byprovidingthisinformation,

7/31/2019 Pew Environment Group Urges House of Representatives to Oppose Efforts to Derail USDA Rules to Undermine St

2/3

Proposition65enablesCalifornians tomake informeddecisionsaboutprotecting themselves

fromexposuretothesechemicals. Becausemandatory labelinghasbeen interpretedtobea

conditionofmanufacture,everythingcoveredunderProposition65couldbeaffectedbythis

provision.

Californias law banning the sale of eggs from batterycage operations passed by

landslidemargins in thestate legislaturewouldbe renderednullandvoid regardlessof its

supportamongthestatesvoters.

Illinois,Indiana,Kentucky,Maine,Michigan,Minnesota,NewYork,Ohio,Pennsylvania,Vermont,andWisconsinallhave laws that impose restrictionson firewood transported intothestate. NewYork,forexample,requiresimportedfirewoodtobeheattreatedtokillinvasive

pestsliketheAsianlonghornbeetleandemeraldashborer,whichdecimatelocalforests. Ifthe

currentFarmBill languagebecomes law, these stateswillhave to sacrifice their forests toa

misguidedlegislativeeffort.

Iowa currently bans the sale of rawmilk. Under the committees bill, Iowa could nolongerbanrawmilkfromothermilkproducingstatessuchasArizona,California,Connecticut,

Idaho,Maine,NewHampshire,NewMexico,Nevada,Vermont,SouthCarolina,Pennsylvania,

andWashington.

Maryland is the firststate in thecountry toban thepreviouslycommonuseor saleof

commercial poultry food that contains arsenic. Should the House Farm Bill become law,

Marylandwouldnolongerbeabletoprotectitscitizensfromthispractice.

Inaddition,theproposedlegislationwouldeffectivelyrenderallballotinitiativesonagricultural

productsvoid

iftheir

goal

is

to

protect

the

health

and

welfare

of

the

citizens

of

one

state

from

the actionsof an industry in another state. Weurge you to support efforts todelete this

sectionfromthelegislationpriortoconsiderationbythefullHouse.

H.R.6083weakenseffortstoprotectindependentfarmers.

Title XII of the committees bill contains a provision thatwould preventUSDA from taking

furtheractiononpreviouslyproposedprotectionsforsmallandmidsizelivestockproducers. It

also repeals critical new protections for contract poultry and hog growers who may be

compelled bymeatprocessing companies tomake huge capital investments in unnecessary

upgradestotheiroperations.WhilefundingformanyoftheUSDAproposalswasrestrictedby

theFY2012appropriationsmeasure,severalimportantprovisions,includingtherestrictionson

unnecessarycapitalinvestments,werefinalized.

Overtheobjectionsofmorethan100farmorganizations,includingtheAmericanFarmBureau

FederationandtheNationalFarmersUnion,thisoverrideofthenewruleswasincludedinthe

FY2013 appropriationsmeasure, and now has also been included in the committeepassed

versionoftheFarmBill.Thisamendment, inourview, ignorestheperilousfinancialsituation

facedbymanycontractfarmers.

7/31/2019 Pew Environment Group Urges House of Representatives to Oppose Efforts to Derail USDA Rules to Undermine St

3/3

Today,contractfarmersholdhugemortgagesonlargechickengrowinghousesandshoulderall

liabilityformanagingthetonsofwasteproducedbutoftenbearthebruntofindustryeffortsto

controlcosts. Processorsmaydemandthatfarmersmakespecificcostlycapitalimprovements

totheirbuildingsandequipmentasaconditionofreceivinganimalstoraise,butgenerallypay

noneof

these

costs.

The

USDA

rulemaking

made

it

clear

that

processors

could

not

demand

unnecessaryupgradestohousesthatareingoodworkingorderandthatprocessorswithplans

tocloseorcurtailprocessingoperationscouldbefoundtobeinviolationoffederallawifthey

demandedsuchupgradesdespitethoseplans. This language repealinga regulationthatwas

finalizedafterafivemonthcommentperiodandreviewofmorethan60,000commentsshould

bestrickenfromthebill.

WelookforwardtoworkingwithyoutoensurethatH.R.6083doesnotunderminetheability

ofstatestoprotectthepublicortheneedsofhardworkingfarmersacrossthecountry.

Sincerely,

KarenSteuer

Director,GovernmentRelations

PewEnvironmentGroup

ksteuer@pewtrusts.org

2028878818