National Issues

You are here: Home / Advocate for Policies / Issues / National Issues

National Issues include all national farm programs, dairy Issues, federal regulatory proposals, animal health and well-being, farm labor & farm safety and is overseen by PFB’s Federal Affairs Specialist.

Grant Gulibon

Regulatory Affairs Specialist
717-761-2740

Bailey Fisher

Federal Affairs Specialist
717-731-3585

Dairy

Whole Milk in Schools

Issue

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 prohibited schools from offering whole and two percent milk to students. Currently, schools offer one percent and/or fat-free milk. Children are less likely to choose one percent or skim milk because its flavor and nutrition has been stripped away. The goal was to combat childhood obesity; however, society has seen firsthand that taking one of the most wholesome and nutritious beverages out of schools has done anything but improve students’ health. It is time to return to science based and pediatrician supported school meal selections, which includes allowing whole and two percent milk to be offered again.

Background

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 did not adhere to science-based nutritional facts regarding milk. Pediatricians have agreed that without whole milk, children are losing out on the 21 essential minerals and 13 vitamins necessary for healthy development. Medical research has proven that whole milk has several health benefits such as strong bone density, a healthier immune system, reducing cardiovascular risk, lowering blood pressure, reducing hunger cravings, reducing type 2 diabetes risk, and increasing sleep quality. In fact, a study1 showed that children consuming whole milk had 40% less risk of being overweight. Also, it is important to remember the nutritional equity and food insecurity piece of the whole milk in schools debate. School meals are an opportunity for students who come from a low-income family to receive fresh and nutritious food and beverages. Parents who are struggling to put a meal on the dinner table at night cannot afford whole milk is the most expensive yet most nutritious type of milk. If money is tight, parents are not going to be able to afford the higher price milk, even though it is better for their child’s health.

AFBF Policy

111 / School & Government Food Purchasing Programs, page 9, #2.4. We support requiring schools to offer all pasteurized fluid milk and milk products, including flavored and unflavored whole milk, as part of the school lunch program without losing federal subsidies.

111 / School & Government Food Purchasing Programs, page 10, #3.7. We oppose the inclusion of all fluid milk options including whole milk and flavored milk in the federally mandated school meals diet calorie count calculation.

Legislation

Bill: S.1957/H.R.1147, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act by Senators Welch (VT), Marshall (KS), and King Jr. (ME) and Representatives Thompson (PA) and Schrier (WA). Summary: Would allow whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free flavored and unflavored milk in school cafeterias.
PA co-sponsors: Sen. Fetterman, Reps. Meuser, Smucker, Cartwright, Reschenthaler, Perry, Kelly, Joyce, Fitzpatrick, Wild, and Deluzio. Status: H.R.1147 passed the House on December 13 with a vote of 330-99.
Ask: Support.

Federal Milk Marketing Orders

Issue

During the 1930s, the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs) were introduced, and from that point on established the minimum prices dairy farmers receive for their milk. The system is comprised of four classes of milk: Class I (fluid milk), Class II (soft products such as ice cream and yogurt), Class III (cheese) and Class IV (butter and milk powder). The problem is the system has not gone under substantial change since the early 2000s, despite the infamous 2018 Farm Bill provision that changed the “higher-of” Class I formula to the simple average-of advanced Class III and IV skim milk prices plus 74 cents.

Background

On July 15, USDA published in the Federal Register a Recommended Decision2 proposing to amend the uniform pricing formulas applicable in all 11 FMMOs based on the hearing in Indiana.

  • Farm Bureau supports the following recommended amendments:
  • The switch from the current “average-of + $0.74” adjuster to the “higher-of” Class III
  • or IV skim milk prices for the month.
  • The updating of milk composition factors as described.
  • The removal of 500-pounds barrel cheddar cheese prices from the Dairy Product
  • Mandatory Reporting Program survey.
  • The increase in county-specific Class I differentials
  • Class I differentials increase in all counties by an average of $1.25 per
  • Farm Bureau opposes the following recommended amendments:
  • Relying solely on the 40-pound block cheddar cheese price to determine the monthly
  • average cheese price used on the formula.
  • Updating Class III and IV formula factors (make allowances) without utilizing data from
  • a mandatory and audited survey of costs and yields from all processors.
  • USDA failing to issue an amendment to increase the Class II differential.
  • USDA failing to issue an amendment to remove advanced pricing from the Class I
  • and II pricing formulas.

A top priority for PFB within the FMMO changes is the return to the higher-of for Class 1 milk. The change of the higher-of Class I mover in the 2018 Farm Bill has resulted in cumulative pool losses of over $1.02 billion3, since May 2019. A major contributor to the continued pool losses is a persistent substantial spread between Class III and Class IV prices. Using the current average-of formula, when the two prices differ more than $1.48 (twice the 74-cent mover), it becomes less advantageous to manufactured product handlers looking to receive a higher value for their milk. During May 2019 and October 2021, the spread between Class III and Class IV exceeded $1.48 57 percent of the time. Farm Bureau is thankful that Chairman Thompson has included in H.R.8467, otherwise known as farm bill, a switchback to the higher-of, so that farmers do not continue to face pool losses.

Finally, Farm Bureau does not support make allowance updates until Congress requires mandatory and audited surveying4. AFBF recognizes the administrative costs behind this survey, but it is a necessary step to ensuring the price and value of milk is accurate. Make allowances must be adjusted, and by using the mandatory cost surveying USDA will determine the exact and appropriate adjustment.

AFBF Policy

238 / National Dairy Program, page 76, #1.2.1.1. We support modifications in the FMMO structure, formulas and price classes used to compute milk prices in order to better reflect current market conditions and enhance transparency and take into account the regional differences in the cost of milk production and incorporate multiple component pricing into all classes of milk; an economic analysis prior to any major revisions to the number of milk classes or Federal Milk Marketing Orders. This analysis should include economic impacts to the dairy industry and farmer income.

238 / National Dairy Program, page 76, #1.1.1.12. We support mandatory processing plant cost surveys audited by USDA to ensure data accuracy.

238 / National Dairy Program, page 77, #1.2.1.14. We support revisions to the FMMO, including fluid milk pricing, progress through the normal channels at USDA that will provide thorough economic analysis and public hearings for producers to be engaged, rather than through legislative override. However, given the circumstances of the Class I mover changes in the 2018 farm bill, we support returning to the Class I milk mover formula to the higher of Class III or IV in the most expedient manner possible.

239 / National Farm Policy, page 83, #8.2.1.1.13. We support modified block voting flexibility within coops (allowing farmers to vote independently and confidentially unless a farmer opts out after being given notice of a referendum).

Legislation

Bill: S.1014/ H.R.1756, the Dairy Pricing Opportunity Act by Senator Gillibrand (NY) and Collins (ME) and Representatives Langworthy (NY) and Morelle (NY).

Summary: Would mandate cost and yield surveying of processors required to participate in the

NDPSR survey every two years.

PA co-sponsors: Sen. Casey and Rep. Meuser

Status: Referred to House and Senate Ag.

Ask: Support.

Proper Labeling of Milk and Dairy Products

Issue

Since the creation of using different nuts or plants to imitate milk, society has seen a decline in consumer transparency when it comes to knowledge of nutritional value. In grocery stores, plant and nut based dairy alternatives are being shelved directly next to products derived from a cow, and their label claiming to be milk does not differentiate the products. This is a concern because the average consumer does not take the time to read the label on the back of the product to understand the difference in nutritional benefits.

Background

Traditional milk from a mammal has certain nutritional benefits that are not found in other beverages, which is why it is important to recognize the makeup of a product. Farm Bureau’s goal in labeling of products is never to downgrade one product to boost another product. Rather, a consumer has the right to know what they are buying based on the front label of a product. Realistically, no one is going to stand in the dairy section and scrutinize the labels of the products because Americans assume the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is enforcing the established standards of identity (SOI). In 1939, the FDA began establishing SOIs, which is simply the specified definition of what a food must contain and/or how it is produced for it to be labeled as such. According to FDA, the purpose of SOIs are to “help protect consumers and promote honesty and fair dealing” 5. If this were true, FDA would enforce the SOI for milk6, which is “Milk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows…”. Despite the clear messaging in milk’s SOI, FDA released a Draft Guidance for Industry: Labeling of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives and Voluntary Nutrient Statements7 in February 2023. Farm Bureau opposed this draft guidance because it would allow plant-based milk alternatives to utilize the term “milk” in product labels and suggests companies utilize voluntary nutrient statements to differentiate their nutritional quality from milk.

AFBF Policy

345 / Labeling, page 142, #16.10. We support all levels of government to vigorously enforce laws regarding the fraudulent and misleading labeling of dairy products.

Legislation

Bill: S.549/ H.R.1462, the Defending Against Imitations and Replacements of Yogurt, Milk, and Cheese To Promote Regular Intake of Dairy Everyday (DAIRY PRIDE) Act by Senators Baldwin (WI) and Risch (ID) and Representatives Joyce (PA) and Kuster (NH). Summary: Would prohibit the sale of any food that uses the market name of a dairy product (such as milk, yogurt, or cream cheese) unless the food (1) is the milk of a hooved animal, (2) is derived from such milk, or (3) contains such milk as a primary ingredient.

PA co-sponsors: Sen. Fetterman, Reps. Meuser, Cartwright, Thompson, Smucker, and Reschenthaler.

Status: Referred to Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and House Energy and Commerce.

Ask: Support.

More Information

Energy

Overview

Farm Bureau believes that the U.S. should be focused on energy independence. Furthermore, we oppose the green energy goal of reaching a 100% clean electricity grid by 2035 and net zero emission status by 2050 as it would have adverse effects on agricultural land and the economy. Rather, Farm Bureau supports the development and implementation of a comprehensive domestic energy policy, which includes conservation, efficiency, exploration, research, and proportional use of subsidies to provide for the production of traditional and renewable energy sources. However, further action is needed to address the vulnerabilities of the U.S. energy sector and the resulting impacts on our nation’s farmers and ranchers.

Solar & Wind

Issue

Today’s farmers and ranchers are producing more with less. Land is valuable to our farmers, especially productive soil. It is concerning when commercial solar and wind companies start offering significant amounts of money to install solar panels or windmills on productive agricultural land. While their offers may be tempting, the installation process severely damages the soil and prime agricultural land then becomes out of commission.

Background

With solar installations on the rise in Pennsylvania and across the nation, finding a balance between solar energy development and production agriculture is more important than ever. Farmers are used to facing land use pressure from warehouses and housing developments, now solar can be added to that list. Property owners have every right to make the decision on whether to install renewables on their land, but they should also be aware that their soil nutrients will never be the same. Keeping fertile farmland productive is also going to help U.S. agriculture remain competitive.

AFBF Policy

402 / Energy, page 162, #12.2. We oppose classifying solar and wind energy as agricultural commodities or farming.

402 / Energy, page 162, #13.1.2. We support establishment of state standards for commercial solar energy conversion systems that protect private property rights and allow for reasonable development of projects.

402 / Energy, page 162, #13.1.3. We support ensuring adequate funds are in place for decommissioning.

506 / Waste Disposal and Recycling, page 200, #1.18. We support the requirement and consumer education of disposal plans at the end of life for materials being used for alternative energy sources, such as batteries for vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines.

Electric

Issue

Record-high input costs are taking a toll on family farms, so finding ways to save on costs like energy bills is essential to long-term sustainability. The current Administration has put an emphasis on promoting Americans to convert their vehicles and equipment to electric as a way to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Above all, affordability and accessibility need to remain at the forefront in discussions surrounding the promotion of electric vehicles and equipment. A diverse energy supply is a great asset to farmers and currently that includes renewable energy as well as conventional energy sources.

Background

While Farm Bureau generally supports renewables, it needs to be left up to the consumer. This is because consumers know what will work best for them. In rural communities, electric vehicles or equipment are not ideal because the infrastructure is not there to support those renewables yet. Additionally, there is certain work on farms and ranches that must be done using conventional fuel powered machinery. These are reasons why choosing to go all electric should be a market-based decision because there are some jobs that cannot be replaced by electric.

AFBF Policy

125 / Highways, page 10, #1.4. We support developing a federal electric and hybrid vehicle roaduse charge.

401 / Electric Power Generation, page 157, #4.3. We support any restrictions on fossil fuels as a source of energy in agriculture, residential and commercial industries.

402 / Energy, page 161, #9.8. We oppose any government mandate, of any amount, of production or conversion to electric vehicles and/or farm equipment.

504 / Environmental Protection and Regulations, page 198, #8.16. We oppose EPA banning wood stoves.

More Information

Environment 

Waters of the United States

Issue

The Clean Water Act gives the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” which are defined as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Nearly any activity that occurs within a WOTUS requires a permit (unless the activity is exempt), which can take years to obtain and cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. A simple misjudgment by a farmer in determining whether a low spot is or is not a WOTUS could trigger huge civil fines and even criminal punishment. Over the years, the EPA and the Corps have attempted to expand the definition of WOTUS to regulate land features that occasionally get wet. Perhaps most controversial, the agencies have attempted to regulate “ephemeral” features, or areas of land that become wet only in response to precipitation. They employed an ambiguous and subjective “significant nexus” test, claiming any such feature with a “significant nexus” to a WOTUS is itself regulated—and they acknowledged that almost any feature could be viewed as having a “significant nexus.” Farm Bureau has pushed back to protect farmers from the threat of potential prosecution just from farming their land or installing conservation measures.

Background

In January 2023, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized a new WOTUS rulemaking that replaced the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule. In their new rule, the agencies doubled down on the unworkable “significant nexus test” and created more risk and uncertainty for farmers and other landowners.

AFBF and others sued the EPA and the Corps over the 2023 WOTUS Rule. District Court rulings have prevented the 2023 Rule from going into effect in 27 states. The litigation is still ongoing, but a May 2023 Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA forced EPA and the Corps to make revisions to their 2023 Rule. In their decision, the Justices uniformly rejected the “significant nexus” test for identifying WOTUS. All nine Justices agreed that this test is a clear overreach of EPA’s authority. The Court in Sackett also established a clear definition of “waters of the U.S.” based on the language and intent of Congress in the Clean Water Act. This Supreme Court decision resolves years of uncertainty and provides clear boundaries for EPA and the Corps in any future enforcement or regulations.

After the Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA, the Corps had an opportunity to write a WOTUS Rule that is fair to farmers and stands the test of time, but instead they chose to revise only a slice of the rule that was rejected by the Court. The agencies eliminated the “significant nexus” test that all nine Supreme Court Justices rejected–but ignored other concerns raised by the Justices, 27 states, and farmers across the country about the rule’s failure to respect private property rights and the Clean Water Act.

The updated rule leaves in place much of the overreach that Farm Bureau and many others have been opposing, including the agencies’ vague “relatively permanent” standard. For this reason, AFBF will persist in its legal challenge to the rule to protect farmers from the threat of penalties and prosecution for simply farming their land.

AFBF Policy

547 / Water Quality, page 227, #3.8. We oppose EPA’s 2023 final WOTUS Rule and any future WOTUS Rule that undermines the intent of the Sackett v. EPA ruling.

SEC Climate Related Disclosures Rule

Issue

In March 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate Related Disclosures for Investors” rule8. The rule would have required farmers and ranchers to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the SEC. However, when the final rule was published on March 6, 2024, the SEC excluded Scope 3.

Background

The provision Farm Bureau was most concerned about with the SEC’s initial proposal was it would have required public companies to report the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of their entire value chain (i.e., Scope 3 emissions). This was concerning because nearly every farmer at some point is in a public company’s value chain, whether it’s a packer, a grocery store, or a seed/fertilizer company. Farm Bureau members made their voices heard, and SEC Chairman Gary Gensler listened as the final rule did not include report requirements for Scope 3. Chairman Gensler did publicly acknowledge that agriculture was never intended to be impacted by the proposal. Therefore, Farm Bureau is thankful for Chairman Gensler and his staff making good on their word and excluding Scope 3 in the final climate-related disclosures rule. Although, Farm Bureau is now asking that California follow the SEC’s lead and remove its Scope 3 reporting requirement for any company doing business in the state.

AFBF Policy

503 / Climate Change, page 195, #3.3. We oppose any law or regulation requiring reporting of any GHG emissions by an agriculture entity.

PFAs

Issue

Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals,” are compounds that do not easily break down over time and can be transported through rain runoff, which means they have been found in surface water and groundwater aquifers. Since farmers are simply “innocent receivers” of PFAS, it is important that farmers are not held responsible for the presence of PFAS chemicals that they did not produce or intentionally use.

Background

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) have been voluntarily phased out by U.S. manufacturers for the most part but are still in limited use in products ranging from stain-resistant clothing and furniture to cookware and food packaging. While farmers do not produce PFOA or PFOS, these chemicals can be found in the water that has been provided to their livestock and crops. In certain areas of the country, PFAS levels have risen in milk, beef, and row crops. Another source of PFAS contamination on farms comes from the use of soil amendments (biosolids, paper byproducts), a practice that has long been supported and encouraged by the EPA.

National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFAs Finalized

On April 10, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), which established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for six PFAS and requirements for public water systems9. The MCL for the listed PFAs is 4 parts per trillion—the lowest level achievable with current technology. This MCL is 25 times lower than what the World Health Organization has proposed. While Farm Bureau shares the health and safety concerns over PFAS, this rule sets an extremely low and unrealistic standard for chemical contamination. Small rural communities will be hit hardest by these new standards because they lack the resources of large cities. With more than 65,000 water systems and only 66 U.S. laboratories that can test for PFAs in water, they will be overwhelmed and priority will be given to large, metropolitan systems. In small communities with a population of less than 100 people, the cost of treating water for PFAs will be between $10,000 and $11,000 per household. Therefore, Farm Bureau is disappointed in EPA for creating arbitrary standards to remove PFAs, rather than using the best available science as the solution.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLA) Rule Finalized

On April 19, EPA announced finalized the Designation of Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) as CERCLA Hazardous Substances rule, which would designate two widely used PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under CERCLA also known as Superfund10. CERCLA is the federal law that provides a federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, EPA has the power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and ensure their cooperation in the cleanup. CERCLA imposes liability on parties responsible for, in whole or in part, the presence of hazardous substances at a site. The rule requires anyone who releases certain levels of PFOA and PFOS into soil or water to report it to federal or tribal authorities. The goal of this rule is to force responsible parties to take remedial actions and pay for the cleanup of a contaminated site. While EPA has stated that the intent of this rule is to hold the producers and users of these chemicals accountable, there is no language in this rulemaking that protects innocent landowners, like farmers, who passively receive these chemicals. A Superfund designation could also devastate land values and leave farmers with land that they are unable to use. Under CERCLA, clean-up funds are disseminated based on a priority list, and it is likely that farmland would be the last in line to receive such assistance.

AFBF Policy

547/Water Quality, page 231, #7.2.4. We support collaboration of agencies, universities, and the private sector to develop proactive solutions and technologies to reduce the human health and environmental risks of emerging contaminants such as PFOS/PFAS.

547/Water Quality, page 232, #7.2.5. We support establishing an indemnification program and funding to properly compensate farmers’, producers’ and/or landowners’ financial losses associated with emerging contaminants such as PFOS/PFAS.

547/Water Quality, page 232, #7.2.6. We support eliminating any liability of agricultural producers and agricultural retailers/applicators for contamination by PFAS or forever chemicals on agricultural commodities or land.

PFB Policy

Natural Resources / Biosolids, page 34, #3. We recommend continued research on PFAS substances known as “forever chemicals” in biosolids.

Legislation

Bill: S.747/ H.R.1517, the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act by Senators Collins (ME) and Shaheen (NH) and Representative Pingree (ME)

Summary: Would direct USDA to establish a grant program to help states address contamination by PFAS on agricultural land and commercial farms.

PA co-sponsors: Rep. Fitzpatrick

Status: Referred to Senate and House Ag.

Ask: Support.

 

Bill: S.1427, the Agriculture PFAS Liability Protection Act by Senator Lummis (WY)

Summary: Would exempt farming from any PFAs liability.

PA co-sponsors: None.

Status: Referred to Senate Environment and Public Works.

Ask: Support.

More Information

Farm Bill

Background

The first farm bill was passed in 1933 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. It was an omnibus, multiyear law that provided agriculture and food programs. It was a reaction to help alleviate farmers and consumers from the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. The farm bill impact extends beyond the farm by protecting our nation’s food supply, providing access to nutrition for families facing hunger, advancing conservation efforts, and spurring innovation through agricultural research.

Farm bill has two types of funding – mandatory and discretionary. Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), farm commodity programs, conservation, and crop insurance are mandatory, and therefore funding is based on the five-year budget estimate. Congress determines discretionary funding such as programs for research, rural development, and credit through separate legislative actions.

The current farm bill, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, consists of twelves titles and is set to expire on September 30, 2024. While Farm Bureau recognizes that a 2023 extension was needed to avoid serious disruptions, Congress should make a new, updated farm bill a priority. Congress needs to pass an updated farm bill as much has changed since passage of the 2018 farm bill: a pandemic, record-high inflation, rising supply costs, and global unrest.

Without a new farm bill, we face the prospect of programs reverting to Great Depression era policy. This would be devasting to producers, processors, and consumers. Commodity support programs would not have proper funding, and many Americans relying on nutrition assistance would be frantically searching for affordable options. New improvements are needed to ensure food and farm programs address today’s realities.

Status

On May 23, the House Agriculture Committee held a markup on H.R.8467, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 otherwise known as the farm bill. After 13 hours of robust debate, Chairman “GT” Thompson was successful in reporting the legislation out of committee with a bipartisan vote. All Republicans on the committee voted in favor as well as four Democrats those being Representatives Don Davis (D-NC), Yadira Caraveo (D-CO), Eric Sorensen (D-IL), and Sanford Bishop (D-GA). See below for Farm Bureau’s statement applauding House Ag’s commitment to getting a farm bill across the finish line. AFBF President Zippy Duvall’s statement on the House Agriculture Committee markup of farm bill can be found here: https://www.fb.org/news-release/farm-bureau-statement-on-house-farm-bill-markup.

The Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman and Ranking Member have both introduced summaries, but no text has been released. Farm Bureau encourages the Senate Agriculture Committee to follow the lead of the House by introducing text and scheduling a markup.

American Farm Bureau Federation’s Priorities

The following are AFBF’s farm bill priorities that were established via the Farm Bill Working Group:

  • Increase baseline for farm bill program spending;
  • Maintain a unified farm bill which keeps nutrition programs and farm programs together;
  • Any changes to current farm legislation must be an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 or the Agricultural Act of 1949;
  • Prioritize risk management tools and funding for both federal crop insurance and commodity programs; and
  • Ensure adequate USDA staffing capacity and technical assistance.

At AFBF’s 2023 Convention, voting delegates finalized and approved the list of priorities. A key takeaway from AFBF’s priorities is the goal is to meet the needs of producers, processors, and consumers. The full list of priorities can be found here: https://www.fb.org/files/2023-Farm-Bill-Priorities-FINAL-23.0119.pdf.

Legislative Fix for Proposition 12

In 2018, California’s (CA) voters passed a law called Proposition 12 (Prop 12) that requires veal, pork, and egg raised in confined areas to have a certain space minimum. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of CA (5-4), when AFBF and National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) sued CA claiming a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. AFBF, National Pork, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Swine Veterinarians, the  U.S. Solicitor General11, and USDA Secretary Vilsack12 have all agreed that Congress must find a bipartisan legislative fix and soon.

Farm Bureau is supportive of House Ag Chairman “GT” Thompson’s proposed solution to Prop 12 in farm bill. Section 12007 of H.R.8467 clarifies that states and local governments cannot impose standards of production, as a condition for sale or consumption, on livestock produced outside of their borders. This protects a producer’s right to participate in a national market without having to adhere to a patchwork of costly compliance requirements. It also protects the rights of states and local governments to impose production standards as they see fit, but only for livestock raised within their own borders. Farm Bureau appreciates the Chairman’s efforts to find a commonsense solution that we hope everyone can get on board with when it comes time for a vote on the House floor.

In short, here are five reasons why to support Section 12007:

  • Protecting the Interstate Commerce System – If states want to force certain growing practices on their producers, they have every right. However, states should not be able to dictate how PA producers have to raise their pork in order to sell it in their states. Chairman Thompson’s proposal is not about ending Prop 12, rather it is assuring states are not restricting market access for arbitrary reasons. Furthermore, USDA is the gold standard. There should be no reason why a product that is USDA inspected cannot be sold anywhere in the U.S.
  • Food Security and Nutritional Equity – With inflation nowadays, families are looking for an affordable protein for their family, which Prop 12 pork is most certainly not. Those on nutrition assistance will not be able to purchase this more expensive yet highly nutritious protein. It is wrong to limit those on nutrition assistance or anyone for that matter to a highly nutritious protein because of arbitrary regulations that are not veterinary supported. Moreover, the pork market is already taking a major hit, which is not a good outlook for U.S. food security. Consumers simply cannot afford Prop 12 pork, so they’re switching to cheaper proteins like chicken.
  • Protecting America’s Small Family Farms – Regulations such as Prop 12 will force the small family farms out of the industry and lead to even more consolidation in agriculture among a few large entities. Consolidation inevitably translates to increased prices at the grocery store and fewer families who can afford high-quality protein—especially those who are already struggling with high grocery prices caused by inflation and have no interest in paying a “premium” for pork raised under a Prop 12-like system. It cost President Hoffman nearly a half million to renovate his barn to be compliant with Question 3 (Massachusetts’s version of Prop 12). He was fortunate enough to be able to make this long-term investment for his son, who will be the next generation on the farm. Although because consumers cannot afford Prop 12 pork, he is not getting compensated for his more expensive product, thus he is not seeing a return on investment. Having said that, these types of costly renovations are financially burdensome for producers of all sizes – especially small family farms – that are already struggling to remain in operation and would likely force smaller producers out of business.
  • Protecting Producers’ Rights (while maintaining states’ rights) – Farm Bureau wants to protect against this type of a harmful precedent from impacting other animal agriculture industries like dairy. Right now, there is nothing in place to prevent a state to say all milk coming into their state has to be grass fed, for example.
  • Mortality Rates are Increasing – Make no mistake, farmers are committed to the proper care of the animals they have been entrusted with. Their animals are their livelihood and a large part of the legacy they hope to pass along to future generations. While the intent of those who put Prop 12 in place was to better animal welfare, they have actually worsened sow health nationwide. Prop 12 is not supported by veterinarians. These standards were put into place by people with little to no knowledge or understanding of the realities of veterinary science and animal husbandry. As a Question 3 producer, President Hoffman can give first hand testimony as to how animal welfare has worsened since Prop 12. California’s Department of Food and Agriculture admitted before Prop 12’s implementation that mortality rates in breeding sows would increase. Again though, Section 12007’s goal is not about removing Prop 12, rather it is to set a precedent to prevent states from regulating how other states must raise their animals in order to sell products to their state. Producers and veterinarians know what is best for the animal, so it is best to leave it up to the people who do this every day.

AFBF Policy

301/Animal Care, page 102, #6.5. We oppose any laws or regulations which would mandate specific farming practices in livestock production.

358/Inspection and Grading of Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Products, page 147, #9. We recommend that any product that is USDA- or FDA-approved can be sold anywhere in the United States.

More Information

Labor

Year-Round Agricultural Visa Program

Issue

The U.S. labor market remains very tight, with an unemployment rate that averaged 3.6%13 in fiscal year 2023, so it shouldn’t be a shock that usage of the H-2A program remains high. PA’s dairy and mushroom farmers are considered year-round producers, which means they are not eligible to use the H-2A agricultural visa program. It is very difficult to find domestic workers willing to learn and do the hard work that agricultural operations require.

Background

H-2A is a six-month, seasonal visa program for agriculture producers to use if they cannot find labor from domestic workers. Farmers and ranchers of all sizes and commodities are working 365 days a year working towards their end product. PFB has specifically heard from dairy and mushroom farmers the most on the need for Congress to create a year-round agricultural visa program. Dairy cows need milked two to three times a day, so farmers have to have an adequate labor supply because it is a commodity where no matter the conditions, those cows must be attended to. PA is the number one state for mushroom production, yet labor remains a struggle for growers. For the dairy and mushroom industry to remain leading commodities in the Commonwealth, Congress must work together and incorporate stakeholder feedback to create a year-round visa program for agriculture.

AFBF Policy

135 / Agricultural Workforce, page 18, #16.1. We support an uncapped agricultural worker visa program that is open to all segments of agriculture and flexible enough to provide for the differing needs of farmers and ranchers. We may accept visa caps for a year-round program as long as they do not restrict farmers and ranchers from using the visa program and getting their labor needs met.

Red Tape in the H-2A Program

Issue

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) combined published six new costly regulations that will have a significant impact on the H-2A community in 2023 alone. Agricultural employers are already experiencing the stress of high input and labor costs, and recently they have been trying to keep up with an ever-changing regulatory environment. Not only is this a problem for employers, but the consumer is also impacted by those higher labor costs.

Background

PFB members have expressed their greatest concern with H-2A regulations are housing inspections. Farmers appreciate the men and women who choose to work on their farms, and they do not take lightly the responsibility of caring for them. H-2A employers though are experiencing excessively oppressive housing inspections. Not having a lid on a trash can to a slit in a screen door to a couple flies being called an insect infestation are all examples that DOL has fined our members for, who have H-2A housing. DOL should be looking out for major and serious problems, during H-2A housing inspection, rather than searching through every inch of the house and fining these family farms. PFB knows of previous H-2A employers who quit using the program because the regulatory fees got to be too much.

AFBF Policy

135 / Agricultural Workforce, page 18, #12. We encourage agencies that perform agricultural employee housing inspections, including the DOL wage and hour division, to work with growers in providing safe housing, or camps, and to allow them to correct problem areas in a timely manner before imposing fines.

135 / Agricultural Workforce, page 18, #13. We recommend that once agricultural employee housing is inspected and licensed by the appropriate state agency and then occupied, the DOL may not enter the dwellings without the employee’s permission and proper notification to the owner of the farm.

135 / Agricultural Workforce, page 22, #19.17.26. We support a worker program that streamlines the H-2A application process in order to make the availability of workers more accessible and timelier for agricultural labor needs.

135 / Agricultural Workforce, page 22, #19.17.29. We support a worker program that reduces fees for H-2A and other visa programs that may be used to employ agricultural workers.

Legislation

Bill: H.R.4708, the H-2 Improvements to Relieve Employers (HIRE) Act by Representatives Gonzales (TX) and Cuellar (TX)

Summary: Would codify visa interview waiver authority for H-2 workers and extend the validity of a

company’s visa petitions and labor certifications.

PA co-sponsors: Reps. Houlahan, Smucker, and Meuser

Status: Referred to House Judiciary and House Education and the Workforce.

Ask: Support.

Bill: H.R.3516, the Farmworker Access and Waiver Act (FAWA) by Representatives Mace (SC) and

Houlahan (PA)

Summary: Would waive the interview requirement for returning H-2A visa workers who were

previously approved.

PA co-sponsors: None.

Status: Referred to House Judiciary.

Ask: Support.

Adverse Effect Wage Rate

Issue

The Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) is a minimum wage that H-2A employers must pay their foreign workers, and it is determined by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The wage rates are derived from the Farm Labor Survey. The purpose of the AEWR is to ensure guest worker wages will not weaken the wages of domestic workers. Fundamentally, the AEWR does not make sense since there are not nearly as many domestic workers as foreign workers in agriculture.

Background

The 2024 AEWR increased as high as 15 percent. Having said that, no state will have an AEWR less than $14 per hour. PA’s 2024 AEWR is $17.20, which was a 65 cents or a four percent increase from 2023. The graph from AFBF’s Market Intel14, shows the constantly increasing wage rates. With labor costs accounting for up to 38.5% of total production expenses in the fruit and tree nuts sector and 28.5% in the vegetable and melons sector, this increase is no small part of the budget. As the AEWRs continues to rise, it is making it more difficult for American farmers to stay in business. In March 2023, DOL published a final rule15 to change the methodology used to calculate the AEWR for the H-2A program. AFBF opposed the rule due to its administrative burden and the harmful impact of increased labor expenses for farmers16.

AFBF Policy

135 / Agricultural Workforce, page 18, #16.3. We support an H-2A wage rate freeze at 2023 levels.

135 / Agricultural Workforce, page 22, #19.17.38. We support the abolishment of the DOL’s Adverse Effect Wage Rate methodology for the temporary employment of H-2A nonimmigrants in non-range occupations in the United States finalized in March 2023.

135 / Agricultural Workforce, page 23, #19.18.9. We oppose separate hourly wage rates for specific tasks in H-2A contracts.

Legislation

Bill: S.3848/H.R.7046, the Supporting Farm Operations Act by Senator Tillis (NC) and

Representatives Moolenaar (MI) and Bishop (GA)

Summary: Would freeze the AEWR at the level that was established in 2023 until end of 2025.

PA co-sponsors: Rep. Meuser

Status: Referred to Senate and House Judiciary.

Ask: Support.

More Information

Wildlife

Crop and Livestock Damage

Issue

Wildlife has the potential to decimate yields, harm livestock, and cause significant damage to existing infrastructure. Skyrocketing input costs in tandem with decreased hunter numbers creates a problem that farmers simply cannot afford.

Background

USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) reports Pennsylvania among the top states experiencing crop losses due to wildlife damage. According to their data, Pennsylvania suffered over $20 million in losses on corn in 2017, the highest reported number in the nation. That same study showed that Pennsylvania farmers suffered more than $15 million in losses to soybean crops in 2017. In 2022, the USDA wildlife damage management program, Wildlife Services (WS) reported that predators cause an estimated $232 million in losses to livestock producers annually and bird damage to crops exceeds $150 million each year.

AFBF Policy

567/Wildlife Management, page 248, #6.1. We support compensation to farmers and ranchers for damages caused by wildlife.

567/Wildlife Management, page 248, #6.2. We support farmers having the right to protect their crops and livestock from destruction by wildlife and migratory birds, on both private and public lands.

567/Wildlife Management, page 248, #6.9. We support placing the crop and livestock damage permit process for migratory birds under the control of the state government rather than the FWS. The process should be made easier for farmers trying to obtain permits.

567/Wildlife Management, page 249, #6.12. We support removal of resident Canada geese, black vultures, sandhill cranes, crows, ravens, cormorants, and barn swallows from protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Legislation

Bill: S.3358/H.R.1437, the Black Vulture Relief Act by Senator Mullin (OK) and Representatives Rose (TN) and Soto (FL)

Summary: Would allow livestock producers to take black vultures without a permit if the bird is

causing death or injury to their animals.

PA co-sponsors: Reps. Meuser, Perry, and Smucker

Status: Referred to Senate Environment and Public Works and Passed Out of House Natural

Resources with a vote of 17-13.

Ask: Support.

More Information