Opposition to the Save Our Bacon Act

SUMMARY

The Animal Law Committee (Sherry Ramsey and Martha Golar, Co-Chairs) issued a legislative report opposing the Save Our Bacon Act (H.R. 4673) and similar provisions included in the 2026 Farm Bill, arguing that the legislation would broadly preempt state authority over the sale of livestock-derived products. The report contends that the bill is primarily aimed at invalidating state laws such as California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, which establish animal welfare standards for products sold within those states. The legislation would overturn voter-approved measures, undermine longstanding principles of federalism, and restrict states’ ability to regulate products sold within their borders to protect public health, consumer interests, and animal welfare. 

The report further argues that the bill could negatively affect animal welfare, food safety, public health, and agricultural innovation by invalidating hundreds of state and local laws governing farming practices, disease prevention, sanitation, consumer protection, and worker safety. The committee cites concerns that weaker standards could lead to increased animal confinement, greater risk of disease outbreaks, and reduced incentives for producers to adopt more humane and sustainable practices. It also maintains that the legislation would favor large industrial farms over smaller producers that have invested in higher welfare standards, creating a regulatory “race to the bottom” rather than encouraging continued improvement in farming practices.

BILL INFORMATION

H.R.4673 (Rep. Hinson)- A BILL to ensure the free movement of livestock-derived products in interstate commerce.

REPORT

 REPORT ON LEGISLATION
BY THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE

H.R.4673 (Rep. Hinson)

A BILL to ensure the free movement of livestock-derived products in interstate commerce.

Save Our Bacon Act

THIS LEGISLATION IS OPPOSED

I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAW

H.R. 4673, known as the “Save Our Bacon Act” (“SOBA”) was introduced in July 2025 and seeks to limit state regulation of farmed animal products, and purports to protect interstate commerce in farmed animal products by preventing individual states from imposing their own production standards on products produced in other states.^[1] Its key provisions include: establishing federal authority over standards governing farmed animal products sold across state lines; limiting states from requiring producers in other states to meet specific farmed animal housing or production practices as a condition of selling products within that state; and aiming to prevent state rules that producers must comply with to access national markets.^[2]

The “Save Our Bacon Act” has evolved from the “EATS Act,” first proposed in 2023, largely as an attempt to invalidate landmark laws like California Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, which restrict extreme confinement of farm animals on factory farms.^[3] California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3 establish animal confinement standards and apply them to products sold within the state.^[4] SOBA seeks to invalidate these laws and would undermine states’ ability to enact their own laws affecting the treatment of farmed animals by preempting state laws that condition the sale of farmed animal products on compliance with in-state production standards when those products are produced in other states.

The “Save Our Bacon Act” claims to eliminate barriers to the sale of animal products across state lines; however, SOBA’s broad scope raises concerns about its wide-ranging impacts that could affect or nullify over 600 state laws and regulations.^[5] Existing laws such as California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, which prevent some of the most cruel forms of confinement of factory farmed animals, would likely be invalidated by SOBA should it become law.^[6] It would frustrate laws designed to prevent the cruelest forms of animal confinement on factory farms and laws designed to promote food safety, protect rural communities, and preserve the environment.^[7]

SOBA would prevent states and localities from applying farmed animal production standards to products sold in interstate commerce if those standards differ from those in other states–potentially undoing years of state-level progress for farmed animals. Similar to the earlier EATS Act and the King Amendment, first proposed in 2013 and defeated in 2014 and 2018, SOBA has faced strong opposition from animal welfare, food safety, environmental, and small-farmer advocates.^[8] Notably, in July 2025, 32 senators signed a letter to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chairman John Boozman and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar asking them to reject the inclusion of any language similar to the EATS Act and King Amendment in the next Farm Bill.^[9] The letter addresses the sweeping negative impact that such legislation would have on laws meant to protect states from infectious disease and invasive pests, to set health and safety standards and consumer safeguards, and to ensure food quality and safety and animal welfare standards.^[10]

On February 13, 2026, H.R. 7567, the “Farm, Food, and National Security Act,” commonly known as the “Farm Bill” was introduced.^[11] The Farm Bill incorporates the language of the “Save Our Bacon Act” in Section 12006. Both pieces of legislation are attempts to push through laws that would imperil states’ rights, consumer safety, environmental concerns, and animal welfare. Folding in the language of the “Save Our Bacon Act” into large “must-pass” bills like the Farm Bill, is a legislative tactic to get otherwise controversial provisions of a bill passed without those provisions being the subject of much scrutiny.

On April 30, 2026, the Farm Bill passed the House of Representatives in a 224-220 vote and is currently before the Senate.^[12]

II. POSITION

We oppose Section 12006 of the “Food Security and Farm Protection Act”^[13] (“the Bill”) because it unnecessarily and broadly preempts state authority, effectively quashing any state efforts to protect animals from the most intensive confinement, conflicts with established constitutional doctrine, and undermines long-standing principles of federalism without a compelling legal justification. The Bill represents an unnecessary federal intrusion into traditional state powers and threatens states’ authority to regulate products sold within the state to protect consumers, public interests, and ethical standards.

III. JUSTIFICATION FOR OPPOSITION

A. The Bill would strip the long-standing balance between federal and state authority and would overturn voter-approved initiatives.

Section 12006 of the Farm Bill would allow the federal government to regulate areas traditionally controlled by the states, which would create an imbalance of power between the state and federal governments. Longstanding principles of federalism have allowed state and local governments to freely regulate agricultural products, except where preempted by federal law, or where the laws would unlawfully discriminate against out-of-state producers or unduly burden trade.^[14] It is within a state’s authority to look out for the interests of its citizens. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Commerce Clause; however, the states have the right to regulate their own markets under their Tenth Amendment Powers.^[15] Traditionally, states have had the authority to regulate for the health, safety, and morals of their citizens.^[16] Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has already upheld California’s Proposition 12 and has allowed the law to stand despite the several attempts to challenge it.^[17]

Additionally, the Bill would disregard democracy by overturning voter-approved ballot initiatives that put laws like California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3 in place. California’s Prop 12 was passed with 62.7% voters in favor,^[18] and Question 3 passed in Massachusetts with 77.6% of voters in favor.^[19] Revoking laws like these would diminish the efficacy of the democratic process and would send a strong message to voters that their voices do not matter.

B. The Bill would remove the states’ ability to regulate within their own borders and to set animal welfare and food safety standards, causing increased animal cruelty and public health concerns.

Section 12006 of the Farm Bill would undermine a state’s authority to regulate products sold within its own borders and would inhibit a state’s ability to set animal welfare and food safety standards. This provision would threaten years of state-level legislative victories for farmed animals, stripping states and localities of the right to impose standards on the production of farmed animal products sold or offered to sale in interstate commerce when those standards differ from other states’ laws.^[20] As previously stated, this Bill would nullify California’s Proposition 12, which passed by voter ballot initiative in 2018.^[21] Proposition 12 imposes requirements on the amount of space allotted for egg-laying hens, veal calves, and pregnant pigs in the state of California, and also imposes a sale ban against noncompliant products from out of state.^[22]

By prohibiting states from enacting their own laws governing farmed animal products, the Bill would invalidate hundreds of existing state and local laws.^[23] A legislative analysis of the Bill conducted by Harvard Law School found that more than 600 state laws and regulations may be impacted by this Bill, which could undo laws, regulations, and requirements in place that address animal health and welfare, public health, food quality and safety, and consumer protection.^[24] Not only would the Bill prohibit states from improving animal welfare standards, but it would also prohibit states from setting requirements related to disease and pest prevention, food safety restrictions related to sanitation and cleanliness, and labor conditions related to worker safety and child labor.^[25] The Bill would make it more difficult for states to regulate harmful additives in animal products, and could have broader impacts by undermining state authority in other regulatory areas, such as animal feed and vaccines, reproductive materials, labeling requirements, and more.^[26]

The Bill will create and exacerbate concerns of animal welfare, public health, and food safety, and reverses a trend toward more humane practices.^[27] Increased confinement would add to the suffering of animals and would breed diseases due to the tight factory conditions in which these animals are raised. The Bill has broad public health implications that could lead to disease outbreaks and worker safety concerns, in addition to the devastating impact on animal welfare.^[28]

C. The Bill would discourage innovation and create a race to the bottom for standards related to animal welfare, food production, and public health.

The provisions of California’s Proposition 12 went into effect in 2020 and 2022; since then, some states have started adopting more humane animal housing systems in order to come into compliance with California law to be able to continue selling animal products in the state.^[29] This Bill would unfairly disadvantage those farmers and the efforts and investments they have made.

This Bill favors industrial factory farms over smaller scale farms that use higher welfare standards, thus making it even more difficult for the smaller farms to compete. Ultimately, this will decrease competition and innovation to improve farming practices and standards. Typically, regulatory pressure creates incentives for innovation, but this Bill would remove the incentive for farmers to invest in new technologies, thus slowing innovation and progress. Many smaller farmed animal product producers also oppose the Bill because it will nullify laws that reward smaller operations for meeting higher standards.^[30] Additionally, farmers have stated that larger enclosures for animals have improved the health and longevity of the animals and have reduced mortality rates.^[31] Section 12006 creates “a permanent federal deregulatory mandate that freezes agricultural standards at the lowest common denominator.”^[32]

IV. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL ARE UNPERSUASIVE

Supporters of the Bill argue that state-imposed laws will raise costs in interstate commerce and that it is important to protect farmers from conflicting state regulations. They also may argue that the Bill will preserve access to national markets for agricultural products and will prevent individual states from effectively setting nationwide production standards. The arguments in support of the Bill are unpersuasive. Other states have already begun to embrace the changes brought about by California and Massachusetts. Indeed, nine other states have also ended the use of gestation crates, with others likely to follow.^[33]

Unfortunately, preventing states from setting their own standards of production and anti-cruelty standards for products sold within the state will take the choice away from voters, [34] and make it more difficult for smaller farmers who want to set higher welfare standards to differentiate themselves from larger corporations. While proponents of the Bill may argue that eliminating laws like Proposition 12 will benefit American farmers and ensure food security, the reality is that the Bill benefits large producers, including Smithfield Foods, which is owned by a Chinese corporation.^[35]

The arguments that Proposition 12 will create chaos in the marketplace and will threaten the pork industry and farmers through the cost of compliance are similarly unfounded. While the large pork producers argue that the Bill would eliminate the potential for a state-created patchwork of laws, this has been called “fear-mongering,” as other industries currently navigate differences in state laws that regulate their products, such as the auto industry.^[36] The market has been moving toward cage- and crate-free agriculture and there has not been chaos as a result of these changes.^[37] Thus far, more than 1,300 producers have come into compliance with Proposition 12 standards and there have not been reported pork shortages in California.^[38] Similarly, compliance with Proposition 12 is not obligatory for producers, as there are 48 other states where noncompliant products can be sold.^[39]

V. CONCLUSION

Section 12006 of the Farm Bill would allow the federal government to regulate areas that were traditionally governed by the states and overturn voter-enacted initiatives, would prevent states from regulating animal welfare, worker safety, public health, and food safety as it relates to farmed animal production, and would create a race to the bottom as producers would not be incentivized to improve practices in farmed animal production. Additionally, if this legislation is enacted, it could result in years of litigation and with courts and lawmakers attempting to understand and implement this Bill, creating uncertainty for regulators, consumers, and producers.

For the reasons above, the Committee opposes the proposed legislation.

Animal Law Committee
Martha Golar, Co-Chair
Sherry Ramsey, Co-Chair