Save Our Bacon Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 4673
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Agriculture and Food
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-23: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-24T08:06:50Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Save Our Bacon Act" (H.R. 4673) aims to promote the unrestricted flow of products from certain livestock across state lines. It seeks to create a unified national market for these products, prevent varying state regulations from hindering trade, and ensure the U.S. meets its international trade commitments.
Key Provisions
- Federal Right to Interstate Commerce: Establishes a federal right for producers of "covered livestock" (defined below) to raise and sell their animals and derived products without interference from other states' production rules.
- Prohibition on State Restrictions:
- States cannot impose or enforce any production conditions or standards (e.g., rules on how animals are raised) on covered livestock that were not physically raised within that state.
- For products derived from covered livestock (e.g., meat or milk-based items), states cannot add or apply different production standards as a requirement for sale or consumption if the livestock originated from another state. The only applicable standards are those from the state where the livestock was raised.
- Definitions:
- Covered Livestock: Domestic animals raised primarily for slaughter for human consumption or for producing milk-based products (like fluid milk). Excludes animals raised mainly for egg production.
- Production: Refers specifically to the raising and breeding of the animals, not to their transport, slaughter, or further processing.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This bill introduces federal preemption (meaning federal law overrides state law) over state-level production standards for out-of-state livestock and products. Previously, states could impose their own rules on imported products, potentially creating inconsistent regulations across the country. The act limits this by tying standards strictly to the originating state's rules, reducing the "patchwork" of varying state laws.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other federal agencies may need to enforce this uniformity in interstate trade, potentially leading to more federal oversight of state actions. States' agriculture departments could face reduced authority over out-of-state products.
- On Citizens: Consumers may benefit from wider availability and potentially lower prices of livestock products due to a national market, but could see less influence from local standards (e.g., on animal welfare or environmental practices).
- On International Relations: Helps the U.S. comply with trade agreements by avoiding internal barriers that could be seen as discriminatory against imports or exports, supporting smoother global livestock trade.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Livestock Producers: Especially those in states like Iowa (pork and dairy focus, implied by the bill's name and sponsors), who gain easier access to national markets without facing extra state hurdles.
- States and Local Governments: Lose flexibility to enforce unique production standards on out-of-state goods, potentially affecting local farming policies.
- Consumers and Retailers: Gain from freer product movement but may encounter standardized (rather than localized) quality or safety assurances.
- International Trade Partners: Benefit indirectly from U.S. adherence to uniform trade rules, reducing disputes over market access.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal/Constitutional: Relies on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress power to regulate interstate trade and preempt conflicting state laws. This could lead to court challenges if states argue it infringes on their rights to protect public health or local interests.
- Political: Sponsored by representatives from agricultural states, it highlights tensions between federal uniformity and state autonomy in farming policy. May spark debates on balancing national economic interests with regional concerns like animal welfare or sustainability standards.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (25)
Rep. Feenstra, Randy [R-IA-4], Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3], Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1], Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6], Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7], Rep. Murphy, Gregory F. [R-NC-3], Rep. Messmer, Mark B. [R-IN-8], Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3], Rep. Flood, Mike [R-NE-1], Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1], Rep. Alford, Mark [R-MO-4], Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large], Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12], Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4], Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8], Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1], Rep. Wied, Tony [R-WI-8], Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6], Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2], Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2], Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4], Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13], Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7], Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4], Rep. Maloy, Celeste [R-UT-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-23: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 2025-07-23: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-23: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Save Our Bacon Act — issued 2025-07-23 — PDF (3 pages)