PICA Commerce Amendment Moving Forward


Update July 16, 2013:On July 11, 2013 by a vote of 216-208, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the King amendment as part of H.R. 2642, the Federal Agricultural Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, now the Farm bill. Section 11312 contains the King amendment. The bill now goes to the Senate. For more on what this amendment means, read Animal Law Coalition’s report below.

Congressman King’s amendment provides “one state cannot deny the trade of an agricultural product from another state based on that product’s means of production.”

The King amendment was approved as part of the House Agriculture Committee’s version of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (FARRM) of 2013, H.R. 1947, on May 15, 2013 by a vote of 36-10.

King’s amendment would target, for example, Prop 2-California, which prohibits sale of eggs in the state that are from hens kept in conditions inconsistent with Cal Health & Safety Code Sec. 25990. That law, known as California’s anti-confinement law for farm animals, requires that “for all or the majority of any day”, egg laying hens must be able to lay down, stand up and fully extend their limbs or wings without touching the sides of an enclosure or other hens, and also turn around freely. See Cal Health & Safety Code Section 25991.

Under Congressman King’s amendment,  this California law could not be applied to foreign egg producers that want to sell eggs in the state. 

In other words, CA egg producers would be held to this standard (Prop 2) but the other states would not be forced to adhere to this law in order to get their shelled eggs into CA.

PD Note:  As we have stated prior the PICA provision (Protect Interstate Commerce Act) was drawn up due to HSUS using state law to force other states to conform to the HSUS law that passed (for example)— re chickens and how much space they should have.

And as we have mentioned in the past, HSUS filed 5 lawsuits re eggie farmers to stop them from opposing the HSUS “confinement” law.  Although the HSUS chicken law will likely be problematic to enforce, the subsequent law passed in 2010 by the CA Legislature (involving forcing any company selling shelled eggs to CA to meet with the HSUS CA law of confinement)–would NOT be allowed, thus ARs, as we can see from the above article, are fit to be tied.

If we think about it, HSUS could then pass a law  and say, no commercially bred animals can be sold in the state unless it was obtained from a NON PROFIT or SHELTER, or no pets can be brought into the state unless it was NOT from a commercial kennel, or NO animals or pets could be sold in the state which were originally from a state which allows commercial kennels, or, no puppies from any state which allows breeding of puppies in commercial kennels? You get the drift.

Contrary to the Animal Rights lamenting about chickens and pigs, etc, the REAL reason that HSUS going state to state on these animal laws is dangerous, is because it LEADS UP TO TAKING STEPS TO INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. HSUS getting into APHIS (which is the Federal Govt) is obvious.  HSUS getting into the GOVERNMENT, period— is obvious.

HSUS and all ARs is basically about changing animals into people so they are not property, it is about changing laws so that they can take out the pet trade, the sales of animals, the use of animals, anything to do with animals.  ARs hate anything to do with animals that results in $$$$ being made, even if it’s selling animal product food (ARs are vegan) or animal products (ARs don’t believe in animal products) or the “commercial” use or sale of animals, period. ARs hate any “confinement” or “kenneling” or “crating” or ANYTHING which restrains or contains animals.  ARs claim that is not true, but all one has to do is read HSUS drafted law. Obvious. Peta says the whales have constitutional rights and they aren’t even people?  Duh.

For example, Oregon law even now defines what adequate shelter means:

‘Adequate shelter’ includes a barn, dog house or other enclosed structure sufficient to protect a domestic animal from wind, rain, snow or sun, that has adequate bedding to protect against cold and dampness and that is maintained to protect the domestic animal from weather and physical injury.

The law specifically SAYS  what is NOT “adequate shelter”: crawl spaces, space under a vehicle, inside of a vehicle if the animal is kept there for a length of time likely to be detrimental to the animal’s health or safety; shelters made from cardboard or other materials easily degraded by weather, carriers or crates designed for temporary housing, shelters with wire or chain-link floors, or shelters surrounded by waste, debris, or other obstructions that could adversely affect the animal’s health.

It is arguable as to what CRATE could be adequate for an animal outside, since if an animal is outside, on an enclosed patio but doesn’t have but doesn’t have “adequate bedding” what does that mean? Are we to believe that a chow chow or other heavily furred dog must have a huge fluffy dog bed? Would that mean that Sibes and Tibetan Mastiff or other Nordic dogs all need fluffball bedding even if they are snow dogs? They should have stated something which is appropriate for the breed type of animal– but instead, they are pretending that the animal is a child who needs to be protected from the weather and physical injury. Clearly one need only go to the poor section of town and find kids playing in back and front yards with debris strewn everywhere, they are not wearing shoes, they are climbing wherever they want, on their own property, and it’s ALL LEGAL?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s