Marker Bills We Oppose
The farm bill expired for the third time on September 30, after little movement earlier last year. While the agriculture community anxiously awaits an updated version better suited to modern farm needs (not those of 2018), marker bills are still regularly being introduced.
As a reminder, marker bills do not get passed on their own. Instead, they’re introduced by members of Congress with the hopes of being included in larger legislative bills—like the farm bill. Think of them as “building blocks” to amass attention and build support for certain policy proposals.
Our team has been tracking OEFFA-endorsed marker bills here. Based on discussions with members of our Consolidation Caucus, we would also like to highlight a few marker bills that we oppose.
Reemergence of the EATS Act (Kind Of)
In the 118th Congress, the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act was introduced (S. 2019, H.R. 4417). It would have prevented state and local jurisdictions from imposing standards or conditions on agricultural products (including farm animals) sold in interstate commerce. In other words, it would roll back decades of work—and hundreds of existing laws— on animal welfare, food safety, public health, and the environment, all while making it easier for corporations to sue local governments.
Now that we’re in the 119th Congress, two marker bills have been introduced that are similar to the former EATS Act.
Food Security and Farm Protection Act and Save Our Bacon Act
The Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S. 1326) and the Save Our Bacon Act (H.R. 4673) are essentially repackaged versions of the EATS Act. They, too, would undermine states’ abilities to regulate agricultural practices and are a direct response to local laws like California’s Proposition 12 (Prop 12) and Massachusetts’ Question 3. These two laws establish animal welfare standards for pigs, egg-laying hens, and calves.
But the introduction of these two pieces of legislation threatens far more than animal welfare. Limiting local jurisdictions from enforcing and establishing regulations around products sold within their borders can undermine consumer preferences and voter-approved laws spanning public health and food safety, to farmworker rights and environmental sustainability. Some lawmakers have also expressed concerns that legislation like S. 1326 and H.R. 4673, and their predecessor, the EATS Act, could contribute to further consolidation and harm American farmers, especially small-scale farmers, who have already taken steps to comply with the voluntary standards set by legislation like Prop 12. (Check out this Farm Action Prop 12 fact sheet to learn more.)
OEFFA opposes the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
Same, Same, but Different
The Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R. 4288) would also undermine local decision-making authority by prohibiting state and local governments from approving pesticide labeling that is more protective than federal regulations. It’s important to note that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIRFA) is considered a minimum standard and the basis for more stringent standards that consider local conditions and community input.
There are currently hundreds of state- and local-level standards that go beyond FIRFA to protect farmworkers, ensure clean drinking water, and regulate pesticides around parks and schools. All would be threatened, and communities would be put at risk, with the passage of H.R. 4288.
OEFFA opposes the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act.
What’s Next?
We, along with many of our national partners, will continue to oppose harmful legislation like the bills mentioned above while advocating for a new farm bill that meets our member-driven priorities. When might we see a new farm bill? Now thrice-expired, the 2018 Farm Bill, authorized more than 7 years ago, no longer meets the needs of our modern agricultural community.
Additionally, the farm bill provisions included in this year’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act do NOT meet the needs of sustainable, organic, and regenerative farmers, like those in the OEFFA community. Worse, the OBBB’s expansion of commodity support programs, like reference price increases and crop insurance funding, comes with cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), severing the vital link that brings nutrition and farm program advocates together. Between the heavily lobbied-for commodity funding and the unprecedented cuts to SNAP in the OBBB, there’s less openness for all members of Congress to come to the table to negotiate for a bipartisan farm bill that covers conservation, rural development, research, organics, and more.
There has been talk of work on a “skinny farm bill,” or Farm Bill 2.0, which is now further complicated by the October 1 government shutdown. If there is movement in the coming months, it’s expected that Representative G.T. Thompson, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, would reintroduce the 2024 House version of the farm bill. We also opposed this legislation.
Stay up-to-date on the farm bill and more by signing up for policy emails and following us on Instagram! Are there any other bad (or good) marker bills we should be tracking? Let us know how potential legislation might impact you or your farm by reaching out to policy@oeffa.org.