As someone who spent four decades in Congress fighting for the well-being of American farmers, rural communities, and farm animals, I feel compelled to speak out against a deeply misguided provision being reintroduced into the farm bill. The so-called “Food Security and Farm Protection Act” is nothing more than a rebranding of the discredited EATS (Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression) Act. Let’s not be fooled by the new name — the intent and consequences remain the same.
My time in the Senate, including leading the passage of two farm bills, gave me firsthand insight into the challenges facing agriculture today. I came to believe, strongly, that states must retain the right to set their own agricultural policies — policies that reflect the values of their voters and support humane, sustainable farming practices. This new version of the EATS Act undermines that foundational principle.
I grew up in Iowa, a state rooted in agriculture. I remember when pigs had room to roam, lie down, and turn around — basic elements of good animal husbandry. But today, some are working to turn back the clock, undoing the progress we’ve made toward more responsible, ethical farming. The “Food Security and Farm Protection Act” would erase hard-won advances in favor of the lowest common denominator, dictated not by local voters, but by corporate lobbying.
Even more concerning is who benefits. Make no mistake: this bill isn’t about helping American farmers. It’s about protecting the bottom line of foreign-owned agribusinesses that want to roll back reforms like California’s Proposition 12 — a law approved by voters in 2018 to ensure more humane treatment of animals sold into the state’s food supply. The bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, claims it’s about food security, but let’s call it what it really is: an attack on states’ rights and consumer choice.
Fortunately, opposition is mounting. Dozens of Republicans and nearly 170 Democrats have already spoken out against the EATS Act. They understand that it would gut state laws that hold corporate agriculture to basic standards. And farmers themselves have adapted: the president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association recently acknowledged that Prop 12 hasn’t required producers to make unwanted changes. The market adjusted — just as it always does.
By overriding Prop 12 and similar state laws, this provision would not only trample voter-approved initiatives, it would also undercut family farmers who have invested in more humane practices. Instead, it rewards massive conglomerates — like Smithfield Foods, which is owned by a Chinese corporation — that want to impose one-size-fits-all rules favoring industrialized systems over community-based agriculture.
This fight is about more than animals in crates. It’s about whether states like Iowa, California, and Ohio can respond to the will of their people. It’s about whether we prioritize short-term profits for a few multinational firms or long-term sustainability for the many family farmers who form the backbone of rural America.
And the stakes are not just ethical — they’re public health-related too. Leading health experts have warned that severe animal confinement weakens immune systems, increases disease risks, and creates pathways for zoonotic outbreaks. One recent report confirmed that avian influenza has now jumped to pigs. Do we really want to increase these risks by eliminating rules that create safer food?
Rather than using the farm bill to override state laws, Congress should be helping farmers meet rising demand for humane, ethical food. Consumers are speaking with their wallets. Farmers are listening. Now lawmakers must follow suit.
We should be encouraging innovation, not punishing progress. Rejecting the EATS Act — no matter what it’s called — is a necessary step in protecting the values that drive American agriculture forward: stewardship, integrity, and respect for our land, our animals, and our fellow citizens.
This is a defining moment for the future of food and farming in the United States. I urge Congress to see through the rebranding and reject this dangerous provision — because no matter what you call it, the EATS Act is still a bad deal for American farmers and for all of us who care about how our food is produced.”
Tom Harkin represented Iowa in the U.S. Senate from 1985 to 2015.
This article originally appeared on Farmers Advance: ‘Farm protection’ bill is actually about protecting big agribusinesses | Opinion
Reporting by Tom Harkin / Farmers Advance
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
