The 2026 Farm Bill and the Fight to Protect State Animal Protection Laws

Buried in the House-passed version of the Farm Bill is Section 12006, language identical to the controversial “Save Our Bacon” (SOB) Act and modeled after the failed “Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression” (EATS) Act. If this provision makes it into the final bill, it would invalidate landmark voter-approved laws like California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3—laws that people like you fought for, voted for, and won.

Fundamentally, this is about:

• Millions of animals trapped in our food system
• Your voice as a voter being silenced by corporate interests
• Federal overreach that benefits industrial agriculture at the expense of everyone else

Factory farming interests are using must-pass legislation to try to erase one of the biggest victories for animals in US history. But they’re underestimating us. They’re underestimating you.

What is the Farm Bill?

The Farm Bill is a massive, comprehensive federal package of legislation passed roughly every five years that governs how America produces, distributes, and consumes food. It’s one of the largest pieces of legislation Congress considers, covering:

• Agriculture policy and commodity subsidies
• Food systems and supply chains
• Nutrition assistance programs like SNAP
• Conservation programs that protect water, soil, and wildlife habitat
• Disaster assistance and farm loans
• Rural development initiatives

The current Farm Bill expired in 2023, but Congress has repeatedly delayed passage of a new bill because lawmakers couldn't agree on a new version. The most recent extension pushes the deadline through September 30, 2026.

Here’s the problem: because the Farm Bill is considered “must-pass” legislation—something Congress has to renew in order to keep critical programs running—it becomes a magnet for unrelated provisions that would probably never succeed as standalone bills. Lawmakers and industry groups often try to attach controversial measures that couldn’t pass on their own, hoping they’ll slip through in the massive bill.

That’s exactly what’s happening now with attacks on state animal protection laws.

Where the Farm Bill stands now

Understanding where we are in the legislative process is key to knowing how we can still win this fight.

Here’s what the process looks like. The Farm Bill follows a complex path through Congress:

1. House Committee draft: The House Agriculture Committee drafts its version of the Farm Bill
2. House Committee markup: House Agriculture Committee members review, debate, and amend the draft
3. House Rules Committee: Amendments are heard and voted on in the House Agriculture Committee
4. Full House vote: The complete House version is voted on by all House members
5. Senate Committee draft: The Senate Agriculture Committee drafts its version of the Farm Bill
6. Senate Committee markup: Senate Agriculture Committee members review, debate, and amend the draft
7. Full Senate vote: The complete Senate version is voted on by all Senators
8. Conference committee: If the House and the Senate pass different versions of the Farm Bill, a specialized bipartisan group of Representatives and Senators reconciles the differences into a single, identical package, resolving the two chambers’ versions
9. Final passage: Both chambers must pass the identical conference version before it goes to the President

Where is the Farm Bill right now?

On April 27, 2026, the House passed its version of the Farm Bill (H.R. 7567) by a narrow margin. That House bill includes Section 12006—the anti-Prop 12 language identical to the Save Our Bacon Act that would overturn state animal protection laws.

But the fight is far from over.

The bill has now moved to the Senate, where lawmakers have drafted their own version, released on June 23, 2026. In the lead-up to the release of the Senate draft, Senator Roger Marshall—one of the original sponsors of a version of the Save Our Bacon Act—revoked his sponsorship in a rare move. Senator John Boozman, Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, had also indicated that Save Our Bacon language would not be included in the Senate’s base text—and when the draft was published, Senator Boozman followed through. In a huge win for farmed animals, the base text of the Senate draft does not include anti-animal language.

However, the fight is far from over. Our opponents are going to work harder than ever to try and get this language added to the Senate version, either through an amendment or at the final conference stage, where lawmakers reconcile the Senate and House versions into one final Farm Bill. Senator Grassley of Iowa, a close ally of industrial agriculture, has said that “he’s especially disappointed that the Senate draft text doesn’t include a provision in the House bill that would nullify animal-welfare state laws like California’s Prop. 12.”

What’s the next phase of the Farm Bill fight?

Right now, advocates across the country are working to ensure the Senate does not amend the Save Our Bacon Act into the draft or make its way into the final Farm Bill. If the Senate’s draft makes its way to final conference without harmful SOB language amended in, it creates a powerful opportunity for lawmakers to keep it that way during final negotiations in the final conference committee.

When the House and Senate versions differ on a major issue, conference negotiators must decide which approach wins. Since the House version contains the anti-animal provision, and the Senate version does not, we would be in a better position to keep that harmful language out of the final Farm Bill. But the fight is far from over. It’s more important than ever for us to urge our Senators to continue to fight this language until the end.

That’s why the Senate is the key battleground right now—and why your voice matters so much.

But wait, what are the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act?

To understand what we’re fighting with this Farm Bill, it’s helpful to look back at the history behind these attacks. Our movement has been fighting this type of language for over a decade.

The King Amendment

This fight started back in 2013 when Iowa Representative Steve King introduced a controversial amendment to that year’s Farm Bill. The “King Amendment” was a direct response to state-level victories for animals, and it aimed to prevent states from setting standards for agricultural products sold within their borders.

The response was immediate and fierce. More than 170 diverse organizations—from the Fraternal Order of Police to the National Governors Association, from family farmers to faith leaders—came together to oppose it. The King Amendment failed in both 2013 and 2018, defeated by broad bipartisan coalitions.

The Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA), a rebranded version of the King Amendment, was then introduced in 2018 and its supporters tried to include it in the 2018 Farm Bill, which is the version of the Farm Bill we have now. PICA did not pass and was not included in the final 2018 Farm Bill, though it would have done the same thing as all of these versions and hurt farmed animals.

The EATS Act

But the factory farming industry didn’t give up. In 2021, they reintroduced nearly identical language as the “Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression” (EATS) Act. And when the US Supreme Court upheld Proposition 12 in May 2023—affirming that states have the right to ban the sale of products that result from extreme cruelty—the industry doubled down.

Within hours of the Supreme Court decision, senators, including Senator Roger Marshall, were vowing to overturn it through legislation. The EATS Act was reintroduced with renewed urgency.

Thanks to tireless advocacy from people like you, the EATS Act became toxic. You made it controversial enough that it couldn’t gain enough support to pass. So the industry rebranded again.

The Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act

When the EATS Act stalled, industry allies reintroduced nearly identical language under new names, hoping a fresh label would escape scrutiny:

• Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S.1326)
• Save Our Bacon Act (H.R. 4673)

Don’t be fooled by the name. The SOB Act is nearly identical to the EATS Act, with one strategic tweak: it exempts egg-laying hens, hoping to peel off some opposition from the egg industry.

But it still covers mother pigs and baby calves raised for veal. It would still overturn California’s Prop 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3. And it would still represent an unprecedented federal preemption of state authority—federal law superseding state and local laws around animal health and welfare, housing standards, disease prevention, food and consumer safety, and generally, agricultural laws, including bans on force-fed foie gras.

What Section 12006 does

Section 12006 of the House-passed Farm Bill currently contains this same Save Our Bacon language. If it becomes law, it would prohibit states from imposing conditions on agricultural products produced in other states—even when those products result from practices voters have deemed unacceptably cruel.

A recent analysis by Harvard Law School’s Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law and Policy Program identified over 600 state laws that would be at risk if this language passes. That doesn’t even include local laws at the city and county level. The harm would be widespread and devastating.

The principle at stake: States and municipalities know their communities’ needs far better than Washington does. This authority should lie with them—not with the federal government acting on behalf of the factory farming industry.

What would Section 12006 mean for animals?

Let’s be clear about what’s at stake: if Section 12006 becomes law, millions of animals will continue to suffer in some of the cruelest confinement systems ever devised.

Laws that would be overturned by Section 12006

California’s Proposition 12 passed in 2018 with 63% voter support. Prop 12 prohibits the sale of products from animals confined in extreme cages and crates. It ensures that mother pigs, egg-laying hens, and calves raised for veal have enough space to stand up, turn around, and stretch their limbs. Section 12006 would invalidate these protections for baby cows and mother pigs.

Similarly, Massachusetts’ Question 3 passed in 2016 with 78% voter support. Question 3 established similar protections. Voters spoke overwhelmingly—and now Congress is considering overturning their decision.

And according to the Harvard analysis, over 600 state laws could be impacted, including:

• Foie gras sales bans
• Standards for animal health and disease prevention, including laws that protect against New World Screwworm
• Public health protections
• Food safety regulations
• Consumer protection measures
• Environmental safeguards

The broader consequences of Section 12006

But the impact goes beyond existing laws. If Section 12006 passes:

• Future state-level protections become nearly impossible. There would be a federal law in place that would preempt, or override, any potential state and local laws. Why would legislators or citizens invest time and resources into campaigns that Congress can simply erase or reject outright?
• A race to the bottom begins. Without state standards to meet, producers with the weakest animal welfare standards would set the baseline for everyone else. Corporations could produce the cheapest products possible through the cruelest means possible—and sell them everywhere.
• Progress slows. Every hard-won victory—every ballot measure, every legislative campaign, every corporate commitment made in response to changing laws—could be undone.

This fight is about far more than one law in California—it’s about whether states, localities, and voters have the power and authority to protect animals at all.

Why opponents are pushing for Section 12006

The factory farming industry has wrapped its opposition in seemingly reasonable concerns. They claim that laws like Prop 12:

• Increase food prices for consumers
• Create supply chain disruptions
• Hurt family farmers
• Impose California's values on other states

But here’s the real reason: to keep animals in cages and protect profit margins.

Let’s address all these claims head-on.

Yes, Prop 12 has changed how some products are produced. But research shows that the actual cost increase to consumers is minimal—approximately $8 per California resident annually.

Meanwhile, the industry conveniently ignores that countless companies—from major corporations to independent farmers—have already invested billions of dollars to comply with these laws. Passing Section 12006 now would pull the rug out from under every producer who made the right choice to meet higher standards.

Family farmers who invested in better systems to meet California’s requirements and access new markets would lose that competitive advantage. Large industrial operations that resisted change would be rewarded. Independent, crate-free producers who built their business model around higher-welfare practices can benefit from higher welfare markets—but Section 12006 would erase that market distinction and those opportunities.

Section 12006 claims to be protecting farmers, but it’s not. It’s really about protecting the corporations that profit from keeping animals in extreme confinement.

The industry also ignores this inconvenient truth: voters overwhelmingly support these protections.

• Prop 12 passed with 63% support in California
• Question 3 passed with 78% support in Massachusetts
• Research from Data for Progress shows 80% of US voters support laws like Prop 12, split almost equally between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents

This isn’t a partisan issue. This isn’t a coastal elite issue. This is about shared values: transparency, opposition to unnecessary cruelty, and the right to know what we’re buying.

The bottom line

Here’s what this fight is actually about: keeping animals in cages and protecting profit margins.

The factory farming industry has built its business model on extreme confinement because it's cheap. Cages, crates, and intensive confinement systems allow corporations to pack more animals into less space, cutting costs while maximizing production.

Laws like Prop 12 disrupt that model. They force producers to prioritize something other than pure profit—namely, the basic needs of living, feeling beings. And the industry will fight with everything it has to maintain the status quo.

What happens next

The Senate is now our key battleground, and there are concrete actions you can take to help.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman recently released the Senate draft text and, fortunately, the Save Our Bacon Act language was excluded. However, the fight doesn’t end here. Now, the industry will fight harder to try to amend this language into the Senate text, or negotiate the language into the text during the final conference.

Senator Marshall’s decision to revoke his sponsorship of the EATS Act shows that sustained advocacy works. And the fact that Senator Boozman left anti-animal language out of the Farm Bill is a major win. It signals that anti-animal provisions like EATS and SOB have become controversial, and that a Farm Bill with that language won’t pass. Lawmakers are hearing from constituents, feeling the pressure, and reconsidering their positions.

What you can do right now

If your Senator is on the Agriculture Committee, urge them to keep SOB/EATS language out of the Senate’s text through the amendment process. Make it clear that you’re watching, you’re engaged, and your vote will be for—not against—the well-being of animals.

If your Senator is not on the Ag Committee, tell them to reject any Farm Bill or amendment that includes Save Our Bacon or EATS language. Let them know that this provision would overturn voter-approved laws and strip states of their authority to protect animals and public health.

Everyone can:

• Share information about this threat with friends, family, and your community
• Contact your legislators repeatedly (persistence matters!)
• Support organizations fighting this provision at every level
• Stay informed as the bill moves through the process

Your advocacy already helped defeat the King Amendment twice and made the EATS Act too controversial to pass on its own. Now we need to finish the job.

Factory farming interests are using the 2026 Farm Bill to try to erase one of the biggest victories for animals in US history. They’re betting that this issue is too complex, too buried in legislative details, for people to notice or care.

They’re wrong.

And so much is at stake:

• Protecting state animal welfare laws that voters and legislators worked for years to pass
• Defending voter-approved measures like Prop 12 and Question 3 that won by overwhelming margins
• Preventing the rollback of decades of progress for farmed animals and safeguarding our future ability to pass more laws
• Millions of animals—mother pigs, calves, and countless others who would remain trapped in extreme confinement

For decades, the movement has fought for basic protections for farmed animals. We’ve won ballot measures and changed laws. We’ve shifted corporate policies and public opinion. We’ve proven that when given the choice, people choose compassion over cruelty.

Section 12006 threatens all of that.

But here’s what the factory farming industry underestimates: the power of people who refuse to accept that animals are mere products to be exploited. The persistence of advocates who see animals as living, feeling beings who deserve far better than what they’re forced to endure. And your willingness to fight for the world we know is possible.

Congress needs to hear from you. They need to know that you’re watching this bill, you understand what’s at stake, and you won’t accept legislation that overturns your vote and abandons animals to extreme confinement.

Your voice matters. Your vote matters. And together, we can stop this attack on democracy and protect the progress we’ve fought so hard to achieve.