The attack on states’ rights to benefit big Chinese conglomerates is back again. The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act, now rebranded as the Save Our Bacon Act, has resurfaced in the House Agriculture Committee’s latest Farm Bill draft.

Supporters claim it would prevent a “patchwork” of state regulations. In reality, it would override state laws governing how agricultural products are produced and sold, stripping states of their authority to set standards for goods sold within their borders.

At its core, the bill would prohibit states from enforcing “any condition or standard of production” on livestock products not physically raised in that state. Though technical in wording, the implications are sweeping. If a state adopts animal welfare, food safety, or labeling standards that differ from those of another state, out-of-state producers, including foreign-owned conglomerates, could challenge those requirements. Congress would effectively nationalize the lowest common denominator and preempt state policymaking in agriculture.

The Christian Employers Alliance is particularly concerned. As a national association representing 25,000 business leaders nationwide, CEA advances and defends faith-driven free enterprise through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and business formation at state and federal levels. Few principles are more American than protecting the rights of states, citizens and employers to operate according to their convictions.

The practical target of the Save Our Bacon Act is California’s Proposition 12, passed by voters in 2018, which requires that animals raised for food and sold in the state have enough space to turn around. These measures reflect evolving consumer preferences and were adopted through democratic processes.

Large agricultural interests challenged these laws all the way to the Supreme Court and lost in 2023. The court affirmed that states may regulate products sold within their borders. Having failed in court, opponents are now attempting to achieve legislatively what they could not win judicially.

Meanwhile, farmers have adapted. Many have retrofitted operations to comply with state markets. Even major producers such as Hormel and Tyson have adjusted. The Save Our Bacon Act would effectively invalidate those investments and destabilize markets that producers have relied upon for years.

State standards have also created valuable market opportunities for small and mid-size farmers who depend on differentiated production practices to compete. Many operate according to traditional husbandry methods consistent with their moral convictions. Changing the rules midstream would disproportionately benefit consolidated, multinational players while harming smaller domestic operations.

The consequences would extend far beyond California. Nearly every state maintains agricultural statutes governing food safety, labeling and production standards. A Harvard Law School report warned that the bill “would throw state and local legislators and regulators across the country into limbo regarding the enforceability of their own livestock and food provisions.” 

In granting relief to a handful of large producers objecting to one state’s standards, Congress would undermine the sovereignty of all 50 states.

In Florida, its citizens take states’ rights and agricultural independence seriously. Florida is a leading agricultural producer, and its legislature has consistently defended the state’s authority to regulate commerce and protect consumers from federal overreach. Whether the issue involves environmental standards, business regulation or public health, Floridians expect Tallahassee, not Washington, to reflect the will of its citizens. 

The Save Our Bacon Act runs directly counter to that principle.

This debate is not merely about pork production. It is about whether states retain constitutional authority to reflect the moral and economic preferences of their citizens and whether small businesses can compete in markets shaped by those preferences.

 At CEA, we regularly defend employers against federal overreach that threatens conscience and free enterprise. The Save Our Bacon Act represents that overreach in agriculture.

One need not agree with every California policy to defend its right to enact them. In this case, standing up for California means standing up for Florida and for every state that values sovereignty. Consumers are expressing preferences at the ballot box and in the marketplace. That is federalism functioning as designed.

The House Agriculture Committee should remove the poison pill of the Save Our Bacon Act from the new Farm Bill. We have not enacted a new Farm Bill since 2018. When it comes to protecting state sovereignty, free enterprise, and American agriculture from further consolidation and foreign leverage, the status quo is preferable to federal preemption that benefits multinational conglomerates at the expense of constitutional federalism.

Margaret Iuculano is the president of the Christian Employers Alliance. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.