|
La American Meat Producers Association llamó la atención de la primavera pasada con el lanzamiento de un blitz publicitario político de 30 millones de dólares dirigido a legisladores federales que buscan derogar leyes estatales de bienestar animal como la Proposición 12 de California.
Conocida como AMPA, la organización de cabildeo formada a finales de 2025 ha recibido escrutinio mientras críticos cuestionan a sus financiadores, membresía y agenda.
Mientras tanto, la gran campaña publicitaria de AMPA anunciada en junio llegó a raíz de una victoria importante de la campaña inicial del grupo a principios de año — sincronizada con el inicio del debate del Congreso sobre un nuevo proyecto de ley agrícola. El senador republicano de Kansas, Roger Marshall, miembro del Comité de Agricultura del Senado y en campaña de reelección, dejó boquiabiertos al mundo agro al retirar su apoyo al anti-Prop 12 Save Our Bacon Act.
Ahora, con las elecciones de mitad de mandato a solo semanas de distancia y el Senado y la Cámara en conversaciones sobre un posible acuerdo de un proyecto de ley agrícola, AMPA dice que no está ralentizando su impulso.
La semana pasada, el recién formado PAC de American Meat Producers presentó una campaña de 3 millones de dólares. El primer anuncio señaló a la representante republicana Ashley Hinson, que enfrenta una dura contienda por el escaño vacío en el Senado de Estados Unidos en Iowa, dejado por la retirada de la senadora republicana Joni Ernst.
En septiembre, los representantes de AMPA y NPPC acudieron a Capitol Hill durante la misma semana, defendiendo mensajes opuestos. Los integrantes de los grupos terminaron alojándose sin saberlo en el mismo hotel de Washington.
La batalla por el proyecto de ley agrícola se avecina
La legislación Save Our Bacon, abandonada por Marshall, eliminaría las barreras impuestas por Prop 12 y leyes estatales similares para la venta de carne de cerdo y otros productos animales entre estados producidos utilizando prácticas que colocan al animal en confinamiento estricto, o jaulas de gestación, durante su periodo de gestación. Los grandes productores de ganado que dependen de una alta producción y mayores márgenes de ganancia dicen que las restricciones dañan el negocio, mientras que algunos productores más pequeños afirman que los límites les dan acceso a un mercado con márgenes de ganancia más altos.
“There will be farms that will just shut their doors immediately” if the Save our Bacon Act becomes law, said Jody Osmund of Farmers for Animals, Communities and the Environment while on Capitol Hill last month.
Marshall, who said he wanted to focus on other legislative priorities, reversed his position as more Republicans have joined Democrats in their opposition to the bill’s effort to federally override state authority. A group of 14 House Republicans wrote to House Ag Committee leaders last year, arguing that such measures would «erode states’ rights, undermine family farmers, and expand foreign influence over U.S. food production.»
Save Our Bacon, though, made it into a House-passed farm bill after the Rules Committee blocked consideration of a bipartisan amendment to strip out the provision.
En el Senado, donde el umbral para avanzar las leyes es mucho más alto, el presidente de la Comisión de Agricultura, John Boozman, R-Ark., consideró que el tema Save Our Bacon era demasiado divisivo para incluirlo en el proyecto de ley agrícola de su comité, que todavía avanza en la Cámara.
Sin embargo, tanto Boozman como el presidente de la Cámara de Agricultura, Glenn «GT» Thompson, dicen estar optimistas de que la disposición o algo similar finalmente se integrará en un proyecto de ley agrícola negociado.
«There is a lot at stake,» said Trish Cook, a National Pork Producers Council Board member who raises pigs in Iowa, the country’s top-producing pork state. «I should not have to be told by California how to raise my animals, and I raise a nutritious, delicious, quality pork item, but because I don’t follow Prop 12 standards, I can’t sell my pork into California.»
NPPC notes that Prop 12 critics include both Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins under President Donald Trump, and former Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former Democratic governor of Iowa who led USDA during both the Obama and Biden administrations.
In a possible hint of what’s doable in the Senate, Ernst last month unsuccessfully sought a vote on an amendment to the Senate Ag Committee’s farm bill. The measure would have preserved Prop 12 and existing state laws while preventing a patchwork of different livestock production standards across the country.
Boozman ruled against a vote on the amendment, saying the bill was closed and opening it back up would lead to a flood of other time-consuming attempts to alter the already delayed legislation.
Ernst’s proposal to leave Prop 12 intact – a compromise aimed at garnering bipartisan support – could signal what it might take to reach an agreement on the issue in a final farm bill.
«Iowa’s livestock producers deserve action and an honest debate, and Senator Ernst will keep fighting to secure a long-term solution,» a spokesperson for Ernst said last month.
While at least 15 states have livestock containment laws, with Florida’s rules going back to 2002, California’s Prop 12 went further by barring sales of pork that violate state standards, like having at least 24 square feet of space per breeding pig.
The pork council says the housing rules of Prop 12 aren’t scientifically based and haven’t been shown to improve animal welfare. It also stresses the support of Save Our Bacon by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
«Animal care isn’t one-size-fits-all. Different animals, farms, and conditions require different decisions. That’s what veterinarians are trained to do. Prop 12 replaces that judgment with a fixed number,» NPPC says.
The council says left unchecked, Prop 12 and related laws will result in a hodgepodge of state regulations, driving up costs for farmers and consumers, and pushing small- and medium-sized farms out of business. Two years after being implemented in 2024 – following NPPC’s unsuccessful case against Prop 12 before the Supreme Court – California pork prices are up 20%, according to the pork council.
NPPC has claimed that AMPA and its affiliated groups are backed by «wealthy interests,» with an agenda that goes against U.S. farmers and puts food affordability at risk. Neither group discloses their donors, nor are they required to by law.
«The public deserves to know who is behind an organization attempting to influence national agricultural policy, what interests are financing it, and what those interests ultimately seek to accomplish,» according to NPPC, which has called AMPA a «front» organization.» «We use that description because AMPA presents itself as a voice for American ‘meat producers’ while its creation, financing and advocacy are tied to interests far removed from mainstream livestock agriculture.»
Bice says AMPA was founded by livestock producers and meat companies «who were tired of watching the biggest players in the pork industry claim to speak for everyone.»
«We’ve worked directly with nearly 5,000 farmers, ranchers, producers and meat companies. Now we’re launching a formal membership program, because farmers keep asking how they can join,» she said, adding that membership is free.
Donors
While contributions to AMPA and NPPC aren’t required to be disclosed, donors to the groups’ respective political action committees are public.
The AMP PAC formed this year has 16 contributions over the 2025-26 cycle, with none specifically listed as from farmers, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The Pork PAC shows nearly 300 donations, including farmers.
Bice says she expects farmer and meat company donations will be reported in upcoming FEC filings.
«AMP PAC intentionally doesn’t ask farmers and ranchers for donations. They’re already stretched thin, and many are already paying, with no say in the matter, through mandatory checkoff dollars, money that ended up with NPPC, and then NPPC spent years trying to overturn laws that help farmers, like Prop 12,» Bice said.
«So far, our donors have been individual Americans stepping up to give independent farmers a voice. That’s the difference: Americans helping American farmers, versus giant foreign-owned agribusinesses helping themselves,» she said.
Brent Hershey, a Pennsylvania-based hog producer in the business for 42 years who is on AMPA’s Farmer Leadership Council, said he’s gone from using gestation crates to becoming Prop 12-certified.
Hershey says the sows on his farm are healthier since making the switch, and issues like heat stress in the summer have completely gone away.
He also says the premium Prop 12 farmers now get in California is around 1-2%, as production goes up, but still crucial to the livelihood of producers who invested in making the change.
«The point is, you’re transitioning in the industry to an acceptable production system from what was unacceptable,» he said. «If Prop 12 is thrown out, that premium will drop immediately … even a couple bucks a pig is important.»
NPPC board member Cook says Prop 12 advocates are largely activists who want a meat-free society.
«They’re going to go state by state, creating a patchwork of unscientific rules that’s going to make livestock production very difficult,» she said. «They really don’t want animal agriculture to even be a part of life.»
There are aspects of raising farm animals that aren’t obvious to laypeople, like gestation stalls being safer for both pigs and farmers, she said.
«There’s a lot more fighting among the sows when they’re in a pen,» she said. «And if you go and observe these animals, they lie right next to each other. They like to be around other animals.»
-Con la contribución de Natalie Fertig.
