18 Sept 2026
Legislation progresses to the Senate floor without the ‘Save Our Bacon Act’, but amendments to the Farm Bill may still be added.
Chris Simpson
Job Title
Image: rarrarorro / Adobe Stock
The United States’ Senate Agriculture Committee has advanced a multi-year agricultural legislative package without a controversial amendment amid an ongoing row over its implications for animal welfare.
The Farm Bill, which informs the federal government’s food and farm policy, will progress to the Senate floor for further debate without the Save Our Bacon Act, although amendments can potentially still be added or reopened at that stage.
The Save Our Bacon Act would facilitate free movement of livestock-derived products between states by preventing them from enforcing specific standards on out-of-state producers in order to sell their products in that state.
It would contravene various state laws including a 2018 ballot initiative from California, Proposition 12, which prohibits the sale of animal products in California that do not comply with specific livestock housing and confinement requirements, regardless of where the products were produced.
Humane World Action Fund president Sara Amundson said: “As expected, the Senate Agriculture Committee leadership pointedly refused to let special interests poison the Farm Bill with the problematic and polarising Save Our Bacon Act, which could overturn the hard-won progress states have made for farmed animals along with hundreds of other state laws that help keep communities healthy and safe.”
She called on lawmakers to ensure the final version of the Farm Bill does not include the act, which has been the subject of a months-long row.
In a letter to the US House Committee of Agriculture in April, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) expressed “strong support” for the Save Our Bacon Act and said it is opposed to Prop 12, arguing its requirements are “not scientifically based” and “restricts veterinarians’ flexibility to provide the best care possible based on animals’ specific needs”.
Two days later, the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) also expressed its support for the act, arguing: “The best solution for animal welfare is for each team of farmers and veterinarians to have flexibility to determine the housing arrangements that are best for their animals in their circumstances.”
In May, Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) responded with a letter to the AVMA calling on it to withdraw its support for the legislation, having found no evidence AVMA members were consulted or aware of the letter.
The AWI – which said it has not received a response from the association – also noted the only place the AVMA’s letter appears to be available to read online is on the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) website and questioned whether the body was involved in the letter.
The AASV letter also appears to only be available on the NPPC website.
Susan Millward, AWI executive director and chief executive, said: “It is remarkable that the AVMA – apparently absent of virtually any involvement from its own members – has repeatedly sent letters to Congress in support of a law that would relegate farmed animals to cages so small they cannot even turn around.
“Tellingly, the AVMA appears unwilling to publicly acknowledge its position. The organisation owes AWI a response and owes its members, and the public, an explanation.”
The AVMA declined to comment when approached by Vet Times.
Wendy Brannen, an NPPC spokesperson said: “AVMA is the largest veterinary organisation in the USA, representing quite literally more than 100,000 veterinarians who understand animal welfare, science, and the care our US pig farmers take when it comes to the health and well-being of their animals, so of course the National Pork Producers Council is going to share their informed voice – along with the voice of the [AASV], which has mirrored AVMA’s concerns in its own letter to Congress.”
In July, more than 700 veterinary professionals signed a letter urging Congress to reject the act, which said: “This harmful legislation would strip states and localities of their rights to pass a wide range of measures protecting animal welfare and public health.”