By Garrett Downs

Presented by Union of Concerned Scientists

With help from Marcia Brown, Marissa Martinez and Meredith Lee Hill

— FIRST IN MA: Congressional opposition to the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act is ramping up in the House. The Bill, aimed at killing California’s Proposition 12, has been the target of attacks from the right and left.

— MA has an update on the Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill, which remains at an impasse.

— EXCLUSIVE: New polling shows that a majority of consumers think brands using labels like “antibiotic free” should require testing and reporting.

HAPPY MONDAY, Aug. 21. Welcome to Morning Ag. I’m your host, Garrett Downs. With Congress out, keep sending those tips to [email protected], and follow us at @Morning_Ag.

A message from Union of Concerned Scientists:

July 2023 was the hottest month on record and agricultural workers are at least 20 times more likely to die of heat-related causes than other workers. Extreme weather poses a threat to food and farmworkers and voters are taking note: in a recent poll, 80% of voters support more and better protections for workers in farming and food industries. But the Food and Farm Bill has never included this key constituency. Learn more

EATS ACT OPPOSITION: A massive group of House lawmakers urged the leaders of the House Agriculture Committee to reject the EATS Act in the farm bill.

What they’re saying: In a letter to Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) and ranking member David Scott (D-Ga.), the bipartisan group said the bill could “harm America’s small farmers, threaten numerous state laws, and infringe on the fundamental rights of states to establish laws and regulations within their own borders.”

The group said that it could harm producers who have already begun transitioning to meet standards imposed by other states, like California’s Prop 12. They add that the bill could overturn troves of state laws, creating an “overnight regulatory vacuum.”

That could include “measures to protect against invasive pests, prevent infectious diseases, improve food safety, address agricultural concerns such as seed standards, and promote animal welfare and consumer protection regarding puppy mills and pet food,” the lawmakers wrote.

Who’s on it?: The letter was led by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.). More than 150 lawmakers signed the letter, including New York Republican Rep. Michael Lawler, who is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the razor-thin House majority.

Remember: The EATS Act, led by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) would negate state laws that have an impact on other states' agriculture industries. It has been spurred on by California’s Prop 12, which bars the sale of pork from pregnant pigs kept in extreme confinement that limits the pig’s movement.

The National Pork Producers Council challenged the measure all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing it ran against the Commerce Clause that allows free trade between states. The group said California was effectively regulating other states, like Iowa, by restricting access to its market unless they complied.

But the conservative court ruled against NPPC and upheld the California law. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the opinion that NPPC and co-petitioner the American Farm Bureau Federation “would have us prevent a State from regulating the sale of an ordinary consumer good within its own borders on nondiscriminatory terms.”

He also said despite persistent lobbying efforts, Congress has not superseded state laws on pork. That is now what Republicans in Congress are trying to do by attaching the EATS Act to the farm bill.

Farm bill implications: If the bill were to be added to the farm bill, it would likely prove a poison pill. That is becoming especially apparent as more than 150 members of the House, Democrats and Republicans, are urging the farm bill’s leaders to keep it out of the final text. Past efforts to introduce a similar bill in the form of amendments in 2014 and 2018 failed.

SUBSCRIBE TO CALIFORNIA CLIMATE: Climate change isn’t just about the weather. It's also about how we do business and create new policies, especially in California. So we have something cool for you: A brand-new California Climate newsletter. It's not just climate or science chat, it's your daily cheat sheet to understanding how the legislative landscape around climate change is shaking up industries across the Golden State. Subscribe now to California Climate to keep up with the changes.

Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.

APPROPS UPDATE: Talks are grinding on this month to pass a bill to fund the Agriculture Department and Food and Drug Administration, two GOP lawmakers and two aides tell Meredith.

Members of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus are still demanding steep cuts to the ag portions of the bill, not just nutrition programs, the people say. Several GOP lawmakers are scrambling to hold off the worst of the cuts, but have largely resigned themselves to the reality that key agriculture programs are likely to see steep cuts in addition to nutrition programs — if House Republicans are actually able to pass the legislation as a stand-alone bill without Democratic votes.

The Senate, however, is unlikely to approve the steepest cuts. But Freedom Caucus members want to use severe cuts in the House bill to force the Senate to negotiate lower spending levels.

Farm bill fallout: The Freedom Caucus’ insistence on cutting farm programs is likely a bad sign for the farm bill — as those demands are nearly certain to resurface.

Time crunch: Lawmakers are still trying to pass the Ag-FDA funding bill as a stand-alone in September, but there has yet to be a breakthrough, the people say. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has already said he intends to pass a stopgap measure to keep the government funded through early December as the Sept. 30 deadline bears down.

If the talks are still at an impasse in the coming days, it’s likely GOP leaders abandon the effort to pass the Ag-FDA funding bill as a stand-alone when Congress returns in September and roll it into the short-term stop gap funding package both McCarthy and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have signaled will be needed to head off an Oct. 1 government shutdown.

A message from Union of Concerned Scientists:

ANTIBIOTICS TESTING: A new report reveals that American consumers want to see more verification of animal-raising claims on labels, such as “raised without antibiotics” and that there should be more transparency, according to new data from Data for Progress and Farm Forward, a nonprofit dedicated to ending factory farming.

“Consumers have high expectations about what labels should mean and we’ve found there’s a real significant gap between what consumers believe they mean and what they actually mean,” Andrew deCoriolis, Farm Forward’s executive director told Marcia.

Proponents of greater restrictions on antibiotic use say that it’s not just about transparency and deceptive marketing. Too much antibiotic use can lead to the development of diseases that resist treatment, and could jump to humans, they say.

Top survey takeaways:

• Affordability remains a top priority, with animal welfare coming in next. 
• 62 percent of respondents want regular testing and reporting for animal products with labels such as “antibiotic-free” and “animal welfare certified.”
• 87 percent believe there should be mandatory labeling for antibiotic use.
• 71 percent say they would lose trust in their grocery store if animal products labeled antibiotic free were discovered to have antibiotic residue. 
• 49 percent are skeptical of labels such as “humane” or “ethically raised.”

Context: The survey comes in the wake of a splashy study published last year in Science that indicated some cattle marketed as antibiotic-free tested positive for antibiotics. Four senators wrote to USDA demanding action, including cracking down on what they called deceptive marketing. The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA has also rolled out a proposal to collect data on antibiotics in livestock.

Bill Niman, co-founder of Food In-Depth which collaborated on the Science research, said that consumers have expectations about labels and specialty grocery stores that the data did not bear out.

“When people saw the USDA seal of approval on a package of meat that they’re buying, everybody felt that they were doing due diligence,” said Niman. But Food In-Depth’s testing pulled back the curtain, he said.

Next steps: Earlier this summer, USDA laid out a new plan to confront deceptive labels and the use of antibiotics in livestock. The Food Safety and Inspection Service plans to partner with the Agricultural Research Service to pilot sampling testing for antibiotics in livestock. From that pilot, FSIS will determine if it will take additional action, such as requiring companies to submit test results to USDA to substantiate its claims or start a new in-house testing program for companies that wish to advertise their products as “raised without antibiotics.”

DOWNLOAD THE POLITICO APP: Stay in the know with the POLITICO mobile app, featuring timely political news, insights and analysis from the best journalists in the business. The sleek and navigable design offers a convenient way to access POLITICO's scoops and groundbreaking reporting. Don’t miss out on the app you can rely on for the news you need. DOWNLOAD FOR iOS – DOWNLOAD FOR ANDROID.

— A farmworker who labored in extreme California heat died; the family and advocates are seeking answers, via The Fresno Bee’s Melissa Montalvo.

— New research out of Stanford compares the U.S. and European Union’s food system investments and regulations with an eye toward emerging animal farming innovation, such as plant-based proteins and lab-grown meat. Both, the researchers find, mostly preserve the “status quo,” which favors conventional animal husbandry.

— The Wall Street Journal analyzes the multi-billion dollar sale of Rao’s tomato sauce. 

THAT’S ALL FOR MA! Drop us a line: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected].

A message from Union of Concerned Scientists:

Extreme heat. Dangerous wildfires. Hazardous workplaces. The risks faced by food and farmworkers are growing and voters are taking note. According to recent polling, over 80% percent of voters in states like Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and bipartisan majorities across the country support more and better protections for food and farmworkers, including 75% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats.

The 2023 Food and Farm Bill can include commonsense protections for the 21.5 million workers who plant, harvest, process, transport, sell and serve our food. The next Food and Farm Bill should include:

• The Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury and Fatality Prevention Act 
• Protecting America’s Meatpacking Workers Act; and
• Voice for Farm Workers Act

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us

To change your alert settings, please log in at https://www.politico.com/_login?base=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com/settings

This email was sent to [email protected] by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

Please click here and follow the steps to unsubscribe.