This article originally appeared in meatingplace
Consider the following. There’s an advocacy group run by two people who previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal rights group. It has a staff of a half-dozen or so. Its major funders, according to public documents, are an animal rights activist billionaire, an environmentalist billionaire, and dark-money outfits.
Does this sound like a group that has the best interests of farmers in mind? Probably not.
Yet this is the background of “Farm Action,” which represents itself as a voice for farmers in Washington, DC.
Farm Action has emerged as a front for animal rights activism on Capitol Hill, specifically in regard to California’s Proposition 12.
Prop 12 is critical to the animal rights movement. If it’s allowed to stand by Congress, then they can create a patchwork of state laws that drive up costs for animal protein producers and reduce choices for consumers.
But they know that farmers have more credibility on the Hill than a cadre of vegan activists. That’s where Farm Action comes in.
Farm Action gives a farmer face to a political strategy that was created and funded by the animal rights movement. Because there are a handful of farms that believe they benefit from Prop 12–those with “Whole Foods”-style production systems–it gives a veneer of credibility to a political agenda that ultimately wants to end all animal agriculture.
These specialty producers were free to sell their products before Prop 12, as they should be. But using Prop 12 as a weapon to raise costs of their competitors is something any fair-minded person should object to. Laws like Prop 12 have an inflationary effect on food prices for consumers and create unnecessary costs for farmers. In fact, polling shows that California voters have buyer’s remorse, with only 35% saying they would support the law today. Why? Because bacon now costs up to 50% more in California than the national average.
About half of states have a citizen initiative or referendum process, giving wealthy animal rights groups plenty of options for ballot measures targeting animal protein. In November, an animal rights research group released polling showing strong public opposition to standard animal husbandry practices in poultry, pork, and beef. The group is encouraging more ballot measures.
Fortunately, the Trump Administration is trying to put an end to these ballot box shenanigans. The administration sued the state of Michigan last week over its law banning the sale of non-cage-free eggs at grocery stores. The administration argues that Michigan can regulate egg farms within its own borders, but it has no power to force regulations on out-of-state farms. Hopefully, they are able to strike a win for consumer and producer freedom.
As for Farm Action, it is doing its best chameleon trick.
A few years ago, Farm Action went all-in on “woke,” straying into social issues such as Black Lives Matter and saying they “stand in solidarity with” anti-police protests that broke out in 2020. Farm Action has also called for DEI to be inserted into 4-H and supported race-based federal grants.
This year, Farm Action has been trying to fit in with the Trump Administration. How? By claiming to be part of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement.
It’s a clever attempt to shift with the winds. And it’s a reminder that in politics you have to stay vigilant and skeptical. Politics is an eternal struggle, and sometimes the ones claiming to be on your side are just pretenders.
Jack Hubbard is the Executive Director of the Center for the Environment and Welfare