Dear Senator Ernst,

 

Thank you for your response regarding the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and California’s Proposition 12. While I appreciate your engagement on agricultural issues, several assertions in your letter did not seem well supported. Specifically:

• Framing and word choice suggest bias rather than neutrality.

• Federalism concerns are selectively applied.

• Voter autonomy and consumer demand are dismissed or ignored.

• Claims about harm to farmers are not substantiated with data.

• Supreme Court interpretation is strategically framed to justify legislation that would override a democratic vote.

 

Below is a more detailed list of concerns with the assertions in your letter:

 

1. Framing California's Law as "Arbitrary" Without Supporting Evidence

"...according to the state’s arbitrary production standards..."

Problem: Calling Proposition 12 "arbitrary" is a rhetorical choice that dismisses the will of millions of California voters without acknowledging the values or science that may have informed the measure. It implies there's no rational basis, yet doesn't engage with the actual standards or ethical reasoning behind the law (e.g., animal welfare concerns). It also ignores the fact that California voters passed this with a significant majority.

Challenge: What, specifically, makes the standards arbitrary? What data or expert opinions are being overlooked?

________________________________________

2. Ignoring Federalism and State Sovereignty Principles

"...forces businesses and farmers that wish to enter California’s market to restructure..."

Problem: This argument mischaracterizes the nature of interstate commerce under federalism. California isn’t imposing its law on Iowa; it is regulating what can be sold within its own borders, which states have broad authority to do. Just as a state can ban plastic bags or mandate labeling requirements, it can regulate how animal products sold in its market are sourced.

Challenge: Isn't California within its rights to determine what products are allowed to be sold within its state, just as Iowa is?

________________________________________

3. Omission of the Animal Welfare Rationale

"...developed without input from farmers, veterinarians, animal care, food safety, or production experts..."

Problem: This is a strong claim and likely inaccurate or misleading. While Proposition 12 may not have been written by industry stakeholders, it was publicly debated and supported by many animal welfare experts and organizations. There is no acknowledgment that voters and advocacy groups may have consulted their own experts.

Challenge: Are there truly no credible veterinarians or animal care professionals who support Proposition 12? Why were those voices excluded from the narrative?

________________________________________

4. Misrepresentation of the Supreme Court's Role

"...the Court opened the door for Congressional action..."

Problem: The Supreme Court ruling in NPPC v. Ross upheld California's law, not because Congress failed to act, but because the Court found it constitutional under existing Commerce Clause interpretations. The reference to Congress's power is not an "invitation" but an acknowledgment of federal supremacy if Congress chooses to legislate.

Challenge: Isn’t it misleading to frame the ruling as an "invitation" to override state-level democratic decisions?

________________________________________

5. Slippery Slope and Patchwork Regulation Fear

"The precedent is alarming because it can extend to any portion of the agricultural sector..."

Problem: This is a classic slippery slope argument. Many industries comply with varied state-level rules all the time (e.g., emissions standards, alcohol laws, minimum wage). The idea that this will create an "unworkable" environment lacks substantiation.

Challenge: What specific examples support the claim that a patchwork of standards would devastate farming more than, say, state-level environmental or labor laws?

________________________________________

6. Assumption That the Law Harms Small Farmers

"...disproportionately harms small, family-run farmers..."

Problem: This is debatable. Some small or niche producers may already meet California’s higher standards and thus gain a competitive advantage. It is largely large-scale industrial producers that are pushing back, due to the cost of reconfiguring confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Challenge: Is there data showing how Proposition 12 impacts small farms versus large industrial ones? Could this law in fact create new market opportunities for higher-welfare producers?

________________________________________

7. No Acknowledgment of Consumer or Ethical Demand

"...undermining Iowa's producers’ ability to effectively feed our country..."

Problem: This ignores that California consumers may be intentionally choosing to avoid pork from animals raised in confined conditions. The statement dismisses consumer agency and ethical considerations, as well as the growing market for ethically raised animal products.

Challenge: Isn’t consumer demand for more humane animal treatment a legitimate market force?

8. Loaded Language and Partisan Framing

"...reverse California’s harmful ballot initiative..."

Problem: The use of “harmful” is a value judgment without a balanced exploration of differing views. It also shifts the tone from informative to combative, which may alienate constituents who support higher welfare standards.

 ________________________________________

Thank you for reviewing the problems with – and challenges to-- the assertions in your letter. I still have concerns regarding the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and hope you will reconsider your support for this bill.

 

Sincerely,

 

Chris Papousek, Iowa