Farm Bill Produces Unexpected Fallout

In 2011 the United Egg Producers (UEP) forged an unlikely partnership with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to push for a “uniform and national standard” dealing with cage production in the egg industry. The new federally mandated standards, if passed, would overturn all state regulations (except for California) and would give the federal government unprecedented control over farmers.

Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow was poised to inject the “Egg Bill” as part of the farm bill, but encountered aggressive opposition from Protect the Harvest and livestock groups who called it a “poison pill” for final farm bill passage and feared the approach would open up the door for animal welfare guidelines to be imposed at the national level for other species.

At the time UEP insisted that national legislation was needed to prevent a patchwork of state initiatives. Their argument in favor was not unique to this issue… support this flawed bill or something much worse could become law.

With the farm bill now signed into law, without the federally mandated standards included, the UEP has announced it will not be renewing its partnership with HSUS and will be ceasing its efforts to pursue federal legislation on national cage standards. In a statement, UEP announced it will be “exploring a range of options with the objective of delivering much-needed business certainty to America’s egg farmers.”

Was it the failure to get “uniform and national standards” for cage production into the farm bill that ended the unholy alliance? Or was it, as some suggest, hope that Missouri’s Attorney General could find success in challenging the constitutionality of California’s new egg regulations, which would require farmers in other states to comply with California’s requirements for cage sizes?

Iowa Secretary of Ag Bill Northey said in a recent radio interview that as of Jan. 1, 2015, Iowa eggs—if they’re not produced according to California’s standards—would not be allowed in California. However, California would not be held to those same standards for another year. “So it clearly discriminates; there will clearly be lawsuits,” Northey said. “Certainly Iowa, as a state, is likely to engage. I think we’ll have Iowa producers, too.”

Here is where the Iowa Ag Secretary’s comments get interesting for those who spend hours each week monitoring legislation and proposed regulations that could affect our industry and the customers who buy the innovative equipment our members manufacture. “It’s a template to bring those kinds of laws from anyplace about anything,” he said. “So it could be about sow crates next. It could be about GMOs, it could be about what herbicide is used on a farm. There’s a lot at stake here—and even a lot at stake for folks outside of California and Iowa,” Northey said.

Steele Shippy from Protect the Harvest sees some light at the end of the tunnel. “The more people understand the consequences of these unfunded mandates and taxes on our food supply, the closer we all get to winning the battle over the contents of our pantries, refrigerators and wallets.”

We will continue to watch the pending court battles and, during our upcoming Spring Conference, will update members on this and on a wide variety of legislative issues that could effect everything from state imposed language in contracts between manufacturers and their dealers to efforts to impose weight restrictions on single-axle tillage and seeding equipment.