Opinion: The truth about the ‘Save Our Bacon’ provision — federalism means staying in your lane

The recent opinion piece by Matthew Hayek and Jeff Sebo regarding the "Save Our Bacon" provision in the federal farm bill is a textbook example of misdirection and emotional appeals, framed as a defense of "democracy." By focusing on the rhetoric of "dismantling state laws," the authors carefully avoid the core legal, practical and constitutional reality of the situation. The real threat to American federalism is not this proposal, it is the overreach of states like California dictating how producers in the rest of the nation operate.

First, the authors deploy a classic emotional appeal by carefully choosing the words "the most extreme forms of animal confinement." This language is designed to spark a knee-jerk reaction rather than foster an objective evaluation of agricultural practices. They entirely ignore the practical reality recognized by hands-on swine veterinarians that individual housing protects gestating sows from territorial aggression, injury and starvation caused by dominant pen-mates. By reducing this complex animal health and safety issue down to a simple narrative of cruelty versus compassion, the piece substitutes emotion for analysis.  

Unsurprisingly, this same, overly simplistic messaging was used to pass Prop 12 originally.  Proponents knew that most voters had no direct experience in livestock production, making them more likely to defer to self-described “experts” and would gladly vote to support an issue carefully framed as opposition to animal cruelty. 

However, now with additional context and information, including significant retail price increases, consumers are increasingly rejecting that one-sided narrative. Many now recognize this is a complex issue best determined by farmers and their veterinarians who have strong incentives to ensure animals are healthy, comfortable and well cared for. 

Stress, injury, disease and poor living conditions reduce productivity, increase costs, lower reproductive success and ultimately harm farm profitability. Healthy, happy sows are productive, profitable sows. 

It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of  Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here   

Implying anyone opposing these state mandates is hostile to animal welfare is a false choice. Every producer I know fully supports humane treatment of animals while also recognizing that agricultural policy should be guided by science, veterinary expertise, practical husbandry and constitutional limits, not emotionally charged ballot initiatives detached from reality.

Second, the article distorts the concept of federalism. The authors argue that the farm bill provision would "erase state policymaking" and undermine the authority of local voters. This is highly misleading. The "Save Our Bacon" provision does not prevent California or Massachusetts from regulating farms located inside their own borders. They remain free to ban gestation crates within their own states. What they are not constitutionally entitled to do, and what this provision rightly stops, is leveraging their massive consumer markets to force anti-animal-welfare mandates onto farmers living thousands of miles away in Iowa, Ohio or North Carolina.

True federalism means one state does not get to meddle in the internal affairs of another. When California conditions market access on the physical dimensions of barns in the Midwest, it ceases to be a "laboratory of democracy." It becomes a regulatory bully. 

It is impossible to physically distinguish Prop 12 compliant products from those that are not. In practice, this means California can only enforce its law by sending its regulators to inspect out-of-state farms. A more striking example of regulatory overreach could hardly be imagined!

Finally, the piece totally misconstrues the fundamental architecture of the United States Constitution. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written precisely to prevent a fragmented, chaotic patchwork of protectionist trade barriers between states. The Constitution explicitly grants the federal government, not individual states, the sole authority to regulate commerce among the several states. 

Although the Supreme Court’s narrow, fractured 2023 ruling opined that California's law technically did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause on the claims presented, the Court explicitly noted that Congress has the ultimate authority to step in and resolve these interstate trade restrictions if it chooses.

By inserting this provision into the farm bill, Congress is performing its constitutional duty to protect the nation's food supply from being hijacked by regional special interests.

The "Save Our Bacon" provision is not a radical overreach. It is a necessary correction that restores federalism, protects the constitutional order of interstate commerce, and relies on reasoned logic rather than emotional rhetoric. It ensures that farmers can continue to feed American families affordably, safely and without unconstitutional interference from out-of-state voters.

Russ Hendricks is vice president of government affairs for the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation.