The pork industry has fought hard in the political, legal, and public sphere to overturn or delay the California law. Republicans in the House Agriculture Committee, meanwhile, have prioritized efforts to overturn Prop. 12, arguing that it hurts farmers and consumers by raising the retail cost of some pork products.

Supporters of Prop. 12 point out, however, that the data often used to critique the law is largely based on early estimates and does not reflect current economics.

Farm Action Fund, which supports the California law, recently launched a public awareness campaign across Washington, D.C., featuring independent hog farmers who have already implemented the Prop. 12 regulations, and who claim the law benefits smaller family-run operations. At the same time, the National Pork Producers Council sent industrial farmers to Capitol Hill to convince lawmakers to overturn Prop. 12 in a farm bill.

Last week’s letter from Republicans represents a rare fissure in the ruling party. And it signals difficulties ahead in getting a farm bill to pass the House if the SOB Act is included.

The Republican signees, including Reps. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida), David Valadao (R-California), and Byron Donalds (R-Florida), wrote that the SOB Act would undermine state authority and override the will of the voters. It would also hurt farmers who made investments to be in compliance with these laws, they said.

“This kind of sweeping federal overreach disregards the principles of federalism and self-governance that have long shaped our nation’s agricultural policies,” the lawmakers wrote.

They also argue that the SOB Act or similar legislation would invite other countries to expand their market in the United States, because one of the beneficiaries would be hog giant Smithfield, which is owned by China’s WH Group. (Link to this post.)