July17,2012 DearMemberofCongress: IamwritingonbehalfofthePewCharitableTruststoexpressourconcernabouttwospecific provisions in H.R.

.R. 6083, the Federal Agriculture Risk Management and Reform Act better known as the 2012 Farm Bill. The language contained in the bill reported by the Agriculture Committeewouldpreemptmoststateorlocaleffortstoprotectthepublicsfoodsupplyand the environment, and would further weaken the already minimal safeguards provided to ensure that farmers are protected from the unfair contracting practices of large meat processingcompanies. H.R.6083wouldpreemptstategovernments. Sec. 12302 of the bill prohibits state and local governments from imposing a standard or conditionontheproductionormanufactureofanyagriculturalproductsoldorofferedforsale in interstate commerce. Based on the bills definition of agricultural product, this broad languagewouldrobstatesoftheirhistoricpowertoprotectthehealthandwelfareoftheirown citizensregardinganyagricultural,horticultural,viticultural,anddairyproducts,livestockand poultry,bees,forestproducts,fishandshellfish,andanyproductsthereof,includingprocessed and manufactured products, and any and all products raised or produced on farms and any processedormanufacturedproductthereof. Thisprovisionwasclearlyadoptedwithoutconsiderationforitsimpactsonthepublic,andits effect would be to preempt hundreds of state laws and regulations, enacted in many cases with overwhelming support from state voters. Just a few examples of states that would be impactedinclude Alaskahashadalawonthebookssince2005thatrequiresthelabelingofallfarmraised halibut, salmon, or sablefish, even in restaurants. Alaska also requires labels for genetically modifiedfarmedfish.Sincefishareconsideredagriculturalproducts,andmandatorylabelingis a condition of manufacture or production, these laws would now be preempted, as would Washingtons requirement for labeling farmraised salmon sold in retail and wholesale fish marketsandthe ArkansasandLouisianarequirementsforlabelingfarmedcatfishsoldinretail andwholesalemarkets. CaliforniasSafeDrinkingWaterandToxicEnforcementAct,betterknownasProposition 65, would be seriously undermined by this legislation. Proposition 65 requires the State to publishalistofchemicalsknowntocausecancerorbirthdefectsorotherreproductiveharm. Thislist,whichmustbeupdatedatleastonceayear,hasgrowntoincludeapproximately800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987. Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homesorworkplaces,orthatarereleasedintotheenvironment.Byprovidingthisinformation,

Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about protecting themselves fromexposuretothesechemicals.Becausemandatorylabelinghasbeeninterpretedtobea condition of manufacture, everything covered under Proposition 65 could be affected by this provision. Californias law banning the sale of eggs from batterycage operations passed by landslide margins in the state legislature would be rendered null and void regardless of its supportamongthestatesvoters.
Illinois,Indiana,Kentucky,Maine,Michigan,Minnesota,NewYork,Ohio,Pennsylvania,

Vermont, and Wisconsin all have laws that impose restrictions on firewood transported into thestate.NewYork,forexample,requiresimportedfirewoodtobeheattreatedtokillinvasive pestsliketheAsianlonghornbeetleandemeraldashborer,whichdecimatelocalforests.Ifthe current Farm Bill language becomes law, these states will have to sacrifice their forests to a misguidedlegislativeeffort. Iowa currently bans the sale of raw milk. Under the committees bill, Iowa could no longerbanrawmilkfromothermilkproducingstatessuchasArizona,California,Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico,Nevada, Vermont, South Carolina,Pennsylvania, andWashington. Maryland is the first state in the country to ban the previously common use or sale of commercial poultry food that contains arsenic. Should the House Farm Bill become law, Marylandwouldnolongerbeabletoprotectitscitizensfromthispractice. Inaddition,theproposedlegislationwouldeffectivelyrenderallballotinitiativesonagricultural productsvoidiftheirgoalistoprotectthehealthandwelfareofthecitizensofonestatefrom the actions of an industry in another state. We urge you to support efforts to delete this sectionfromthelegislationpriortoconsiderationbythefullHouse. H.R.6083weakenseffortstoprotectindependentfarmers. Title XII of the committees bill contains a provision that would prevent USDA from taking furtheractiononpreviouslyproposedprotectionsforsmallandmidsizelivestockproducers.It also repeals critical new protections for contract poultry and hog growers who may be compelled by meatprocessing companies to make huge capital investments in unnecessary upgradestotheiroperations.WhilefundingformanyoftheUSDAproposalswasrestrictedby theFY2012appropriationsmeasure,severalimportantprovisions,includingtherestrictionson unnecessarycapitalinvestments,werefinalized. Overtheobjectionsofmorethan100farmorganizations,includingtheAmericanFarmBureau FederationandtheNationalFarmersUnion,thisoverrideofthenewruleswasincludedinthe FY2013 appropriations measure, and now has also been included in the committeepassed versionoftheFarmBill.Thisamendment,inourview,ignorestheperilousfinancialsituation facedbymanycontractfarmers.

 Today,contractfarmersholdhugemortgagesonlargechickengrowinghousesandshoulderall liabilityformanagingthetonsofwasteproducedbutoftenbearthebruntofindustryeffortsto controlcosts.Processorsmaydemandthatfarmersmakespecificcostlycapitalimprovements totheirbuildingsandequipmentasaconditionofreceivinganimalstoraise,butgenerallypay none of these costs. The USDA rulemaking made it clear that processors could not demand unnecessaryupgradestohousesthatareingoodworkingorderandthatprocessorswithplans tocloseorcurtailprocessingoperationscouldbefoundtobeinviolationoffederallawifthey demanded such upgrades despite those plans. This language repealing a regulation that was finalizedafterafivemonthcommentperiodandreviewofmorethan60,000commentsshould bestrickenfromthebill. WelookforwardtoworkingwithyoutoensurethatH.R.6083doesnotunderminetheability ofstatestoprotectthepublicortheneedsofhardworkingfarmersacrossthecountry. Sincerely, KarenSteuer Director,GovernmentRelations PewEnvironmentGroup ksteuer@pewtrusts.org 2028878818