Apple Podcasts
RSS
Amazon Music
Spotify
YouTube
PocketCasts
CastBox
Player.fm
TuneIn
Audible
App not listed? Try this RSS linkIn this episode of The Hen Report, Jasmin Singer and Mariann Sullivan are joined by Matthew Dominguez, U.S. Director for Compassion in World Farming, for an urgent deep-dive into the Save Our Bacon (SOB) Act — dangerous preemption language hidden inside the Farm Bill that could strip states of their right to pass and enforce farm animal protection laws, wiping out decades of hard-won legislative progress.
- Save Our Bacon Act / EATS Act explained: The factory farming industry has embedded roughly 100 words into the Farm Bill that would federally preempt state-level animal welfare and food safety laws — including cage-free and gestation-crate bans in California, Massachusetts, and beyond.
- Call your senators now: The Senate Ag Committee is drafting its version of the Farm Bill with a target vote by end of May; call the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121, ask to speak to your senator’s office, identify yourself as a constituent, and ask your senators to oppose any Farm Bill containing Save Our Bacon Act language.
- Broader implications: Harvard Law’s Animal Law Program identified up to 1,000 state laws — covering food safety, environmental protection, and consumer rights — that could be nullified if this preemption language passes.
- Bipartisan opposition and a growing coalition: Family farmers, food safety advocates, and even the MAHA movement are joining animal protection groups in fighting the bill, with Republicans and Democrats alike opposing the language.
- Incremental reform vs. abolition: Matthew addresses the debate over whether cage-free progress is meaningful, arguing that incremental wins — such as removing 140–150 million birds from barren battery cages — build the momentum needed for deeper systemic change.
RESOURCES
-
-
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Jasmin Singer: Welcome to "The Hen Report." This is Jasmin Singer,
Mariann Sullivan: This is Mariann Sullivan.
Jasmin Singer: and we have a very special guest that I'll introduce in just one second. I'm super excited about this and you will be too.
But just a quick reminder that the Our Hen House podcasts come out multiple times a week. Rising Anxieties comes out on Tuesdays, The Hen Report on Thursdays, and the long form interview on Fridays. Bonus for Flock members, comes out on Mondays. We're on YouTube. We're on every podcatcher, so subscribe, hit like, leave a comment, spread the word. Okay, so today is The Hen Report, and we have a very special wingman joining us, and you're already familiar with Matthew's work.
Matthew Dominguez is here with an update on the Save Our Bacon Act, otherwise known as the SOB Act. Matthew, who was on the podcast quite recently, is of course the US director for Compassion in World Farming. Welcome back, Matt. Thanks for being here.
Matthew Dominguez: Hey, thank you so much for having me on, especially on this important issue.
Jasmin Singer: Absolutely. We're super excited about having you on. Mariann, why don't you kick us off?
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. I mean, you actually initiated this and asked to come on to talk about the SOB Act, which is hugely important, and why people in the US should be calling their senators, now senators, to prevent this from passing. I thought maybe we would just start out by opening the floor to you and can you just kinda give us your spiel on what you came on to say, and then maybe we can ask some follow-up questions?
Matthew Dominguez: Absolutely. Always, always happy to chat farm animals. As many of your listeners know, and I know that you all know that over the course of the last several decades, farm animal protection organizations, activists, advocates, we have been fighting hard in states, state by state by state, to pass laws to ban the cruelest practices that happen on factory farms, namely the extreme confinement of chickens, pigs, and veal calves.
We've had a lot of success. Uh, in California, in Massachusetts, in Colorado, in Michigan, we have banned the cruel confinement anywhere between eight and 12 states, depending on the species. In California, we ran a ballot measure that passed with over 60%. In Massachusetts, the Question 3 ballot measure passed by over 70%.
So we know that Americans care that the animals that are raised on farms are at least treated with a modicum of decency and at least enough space to stand up and turn around. And of course, what we know is the meat industry, the factory farming industry's response to all of this work isn't to move away from the cruel confinement that their customers don't want, but rather to continue to try to fight to strip our laws that we've successfully passed.
They've tried in the courts. They've taken this all the way up to the Supreme Court and got their ass handed to them and lost. And now what they're doing is probably one of the most egregious things, is they're going to the federal government, and within the Farm Bill, which is this massive agricultural package that is passed by Congress every four to five years, they have hidden about 100 words that is the language of the Save Our Bacon Act into this Farm Bill, and they're trying to pass it in the cover of darkness to strip away states' rights from passing farm animal protection laws.
This would have a, a devastating effect, effect to advocates, to organizations, and most importantly, to the millions of farm animals that we've been able to get out of cages over the last decade. So it is incredibly important that activists and advocates and anyone who cares about where their food comes from, that cares about animals, that they call their senators today.
You have two of them. You call them, you tell them to oppose the Farm Bill if it includes the Save Our Bacon Act language. We're in the Senate. Unfortunately, we lost in the House. We came very close, only a few votes short of killing the Farm Bill. However, now we fight in the Senate. I'm really optimistic, but the only way we win is if people take action today.
Mariann Sullivan: Well, I mean, what I wanted to follow up with in particular is, is the question of sales bans, 'cause this is really about sales bans, right? You know, we've been talking about that a lot on the podcast, so I'm sure people are kind of familiar with the difference between a state just saying, which it started out with in Prop 2 in California many years ago, that, All right, this is how we're gonna raise animals in, in California, and they soon realized that, uh, that's not enough 'cause they're raising, they're raising all these animals in Idaho right next door in, in the worst ways possible.
So can you talk a little bit about sales bans and why they're so crucial to actually changing the way farm animals are treated?
Matthew Dominguez: Of course. And that, and that's a great question, and it's getting very much into the weeds, but important weeds of what we're doing and what
Mariann Sullivan: We like the weeds here.
Matthew Dominguez: The dangerous language in the Farm Bill would do. So on the state level, there's been a lot of bills that have passed. Uh, one of the first bills I ever passed was in Rhode Island to ban, uh, cruel confinement of mother pigs and veal calves.
Now, those laws are banning production practices in the state, and as you can imagine, many of the states where we can pass laws, uh, there's not a lot of factory farms, um, except for California in particular. However, one of the things that's important and one of the things that states have the right to do is say that if you are gonna sell into our market, so California, Prop 12, if you're gonna come into California and sell your products, it has to meet a basic standard of care.
It has to at least reach this level of welfare when it comes to animals or public safety or food safety laws. And so these sales bans in California and Massachusetts and many other states, that's really what they're trying to attack, is to strip away a state's right to not only ban these practices in the state, but most importantly, to take away that ability for us to protect our markets in these particular states.
And that's what this preemption language would do in the Farm Bill and why it's so critically important. California is a massive state. It's the fifth largest economy in the world. And so as you can imagine, the amount of the market that is at risk here is, is we're talking about hundreds of millions of animals that are gonna be at risk if this language is passed.
Jasmin Singer: Wow. The things that they could get away with, it's unbelievable. So our focus is, of course, the animal welfare provisions that would be affected by this legislation, but it would also affect lots of other state laws. Can you give us some idea of that?
Matthew Dominguez: It's not only dangerous from the animal welfare standpoint, but I mean, the dangerous precedent that we're setting, and what I actually find to be incredibly ironic, is that people, the minority people that are pushing this language in the, uh, in the House and also in the Senate, the vast majority of lawmakers actually agree with us.
But there are lawmakers, particularly in the Midwest, that represent Iowa and other large factory farming states. They're Republicans. So Republicans who are supposed to be all about states' rights are actually pushing federal legislation to preempt states from having the right to protect their market from cruelty and other things.
Now, Harvard Animal Law Clinic, they did a massive research project and found that anywhere between 600 to 1,000 other laws, other state laws would be impacted by this. Namely, one would be the ban on the sale of foie gras in New York City would be wiped off the books if this language is passed. But on the food safety side, one of the issues we're facing is we also don't know what the implications of this is gonna be.
And just demonstrating how dangerous it is, is we know that it will wipe out the animal welfare laws, but there are dozens and dozens of food safety laws and environmental laws and consumer rights laws that potentially could be nullified as well. And like I said, Harvard Law-- Animal Law program, they identified nearly 1,000 state laws that would be wiped off the books.
So it's a really good example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to just how much the factory farming industry wants to preempt states from being able to regulate their business at all.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. I'm just gonna insert this little fact that I covered on Rising Anxieties this week, 'cause I d- you know, I have no inside information, but the fact is, is that the Harvard Animal Law Program is being undermined, like financially at Harvard, and I find it hard to believe that this isn't one of the reasons, this really amazing kind of work, uh, that they have done to, to counter some of the powers in factory farming.
All right. So I'm just say- uh, that was a diversion, but I just wanted to mention that 'cause it pisses me off. So these... I mean, so it is-- there is something of a coalition, right? It's not just, uh, like you guys and the Humane Societ- well, the Humane World for Animals.
Matthew Dominguez: World for Animals.
Mariann Sullivan: never get it, like I'm gonna call it that till I die, but whatever.
And, you know, that's doing this. There's a, there's a coalition of other interests as well, right?
Matthew Dominguez: The coalition fighting against this is massive. There are, I would say, more than 20 or 30 animal protection organizations that are working on this. There are family farmers, there are producers, there's companies. There's an incredible company that we work with called ButcherBox that has been on The Hill, uh, fighting against this dangerous language.
There are, uh, there are food safety groups. And what's actually really interesting is that where you, you would think that groups that you wouldn't necessarily align with, but the MAHA movement, the Make America Healthy Again, and they've been fighting hard in the Farm Bill to get, uh, liability shields stripped out of the language, which is important to note.
The industry is not only trying to nullify states from being able to pass welfare laws, but they're also trying to pass language in the Farm Bill that would give immunity to chemical companies from being able to be sued. So chemical companies can put out toxins and poison out into the universe and into the environment, give people cancer, kill people, and Congress is currently considering a provision in the Farm Bill that would take away your right to sue them.
The factory farming interest has absolutely no ethics. I mean, they will do anything to protect their bottom line. But the folks that are fighting against the poison liability shield are actually coming over to our side. And I actually, this week I'm gonna be talking to an advocate who is very, very large on Instagram and been working, fighting hard against the liability shield.
She's like, "Please come on. We wanna talk to you, to, to you about this issue because we care about it as well, particularly around stealing states' rights and public health issues." So there's a massive coalition that's fighting against this, and it's not just the animal groups.
Jasmin Singer: Well, and speaking of, uh, support and opposition, was there opposition from both parties in the House, and was there support from both parties?
Matthew Dominguez: Yeah. So it's primarily a handful of Republicans on the, uh, House and Senate Agricultural Committee. So these are the senators and representatives that represent, you know, Iowa and a few other Midwestern states where large factory farming interests have a stronghold. There's a lot of Republicans, uh, that, that do not support this.
In fact, the amendment that we were working on in the House to strip this language out that came very close, very, very close, was led by a Republican, uh, named Representative Luna, uh, in Florida. And so there are a number of Republicans that are opposed to this language. And so if you actually looked at it from a straight up or down vote, if the House of Representatives, if the Speaker Johnson would've given the language that we're talking about in the amendment that we were trying to pass to strip this language out, if it would've gotten an up or down vote in the House, we absolutely would've won.
But this is where it's important to know just how laws are made in the United States. You don't always get your fair day for a vote. And this is what we're really pushing for is because they're gonna use, uh, legislative procedures both in the House and the Senate to circumvent members of Congress from being allowed to vote on this issue because they know if people are allowed to vote, this language would be stripped out.
We have hundreds and hundreds of Democrats and Republicans who are opposed to this language, but the fight is to make sure that we get our day on the floor or in a committee to actually vote on this. And that's where all of you that are listening, contact your senators today. Tell them to oppose the Farm Bill if it includes the EATS or the, the Save Our Bacon, what used to be called the EATS Act language.
We need senators to hear from us so that they know that they're being watched by their constituents. And don't just call once, and don't just email once. Call every day if you have to until you get the office, the people who represent you in Congress. Until they tell you that they're going to oppose it, keep calling.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, and we'll get a little bit more into even more exact mechanics on that. But first I, I have a few more questions I wanna ask.
I want to go back to something you said because I, I feel like we didn't fully elaborate on it. This-- Aside from these specific issues, there's this real shift of power from the states to the federal government here.
I mean, really seriously, And it's not just on this issue and it has a lot to do with what you said that, uh, you know, the Republicans used to be all about states' rights when that was to their advantage. It turned out it was only because it was to their advantage. And um, so it's, you know, as you say, this isn't a Republican-Democrat issue completely. But basically the industry definitely now, they want to kind of shift farmed animal welfare to the federal government and then they want the federal government to do no animal welfare legislation. Does that pretty much sum it up?
Matthew Dominguez: I think you did a phenomenal job of, of summing it up. And what we do know is when it comes to Congress, uh, let's be honest, that ever since, uh, that corporations were able to make donations with Citizens United, we don't have a Congress that represents the people. It represents corporate interests. And what we are fighting against is a massive issue within our government, is the fact that we are outnumbered and outspent when it comes to the people that pull the strings. And as you pointed out, it's real convenient when it's something they care about, whether Democratic or Republican, and saying, "Well, we got to reserve this to the states. It's states' rights. That's, that's, you know, our founding documents really reserve so much of the power to the states, and that's what our country is about." But then the second something they don't like... it reminds me a lot about free speech, and those who truly believe in free speech will fight to the death for those who are able to speak out on things that they don't agree with. But in this instance, because they don't agree with it, they of course want to take away states' rights, and that's not really anything that I'm surprised about. But they don't just want to move... It's not like they want to move farm animal welfare to the federal government and have it regulated there. They want to move the power to regulate factory farming to the federal government, where they know they have control to make sure that absolutely nothing happens.
I mean, it's important to note, ten billion-plus animals are slaughtered in the United States, and those are just land animals that are slaughtered in the United States every single year in this country. That's 10 billion, and it's hard to even imagine just the number of animals. There are essentially no federal laws that protect farm animals.
There's only really two laws, and they're not even adequate at most. I mean, there's the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, which doesn't even cover the number one animal slaughtered in the United States, which are birds. It doesn't-- the word animal doesn't, isn't defined to include chickens and turkeys and birds.
So you have the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act that doesn't even apply to most of the animals killed. You have the Humane Transport Act, uh, from the 1800s that is, uh, it requires an absurd amount of hours before they're given food and water and stoppage, which doesn't really even apply. So the vast majority of farm animals, when they're on the farm, when they're in transportation, and when they're being slaughtered, have zero federal protections, and they want to keep it that way.
The only place where we've been able to pass laws are in states, and now they're trying to take away our ability to do that.
Jasmin Singer: And I think a lot of our listeners are unlike probably many of the people you're talking to, I think a lot of our listeners are familiar with a lot of those, uh, ludicrous facts, and it, it's been, it's been a while since I've calculated this, but at one point I calculated that the amount of birds killed every second in the United States is 267. So, uh, it's just a, a another way of kind of wrapping your head around what is truly an impossible number. Admittedly, I get a little, uh, confused about the way the government works. I think the government gets... I, I...
Matthew Dominguez: That is by design.
Jasmin Singer: Yes, I know.
Matthew Dominguez: They do it by design to keep people from being able to engage, 'cause they don't want constituents and they don't want people to know what's happening.
Jasmin Singer: No, I know, and I think the government gets confused by the way the government works. Um, I just finished-- little side note, I just finished reading Jamie Raskin's book, "Unthinkable," which was mostly about the, you know, the insurrection, and it, it was just... I, I think anyone who's interested in, like, an inside look about- of the government and is interested in animal issues, since Jamie Raskin is so phenomenal on them, as was his son Tommy, should read that book.
But I digress. Um, going back to the, the toxic government, does the Farm Bill need 60 votes in the Senate?
Matthew Dominguez: Yes. So as, as long as... currently the Republican Party is in control of both chambers, I mean, I think we will see a pretty significant shift here in the midterms. Um, but again, this really isn't a, a, a political issue. I mean, we have Republicans and Democrats on both sides. But as long as the Republican majority doesn't take away that 60-vote requirement when it comes to the filibuster, uh, then yes, they will need 60 votes to get the Farm Bill, uh, passed.
This is a massive bill. This is-- I mean, aside from probably, probably military, um, this is one of the largest, uh, bills, packages that they are going to pass. Republicans need this. Um, Republicans need to pass this to go back into their districts around midterms to say, "This is what we brought to rural communities and family farmers."
And so we're hoping that something as toxic as the Save Our Bacon Act language will be very difficult to pass in the Senate. But I will say there is... this has been going on for the last three or four Farm Bills. I mean, to-- it's just a little bit of a history lesson. The original author of this preemption language was considered the King amendment because it was Steve King in Iowa, who arguably is one of the worst Congress members and one of the worst people that have ever been in Congress when it comes to all things compassion and love in this world.
So he's the originator of this terrible language. And over the course of the last several Farm Bills, we've been able to kill this in the Senate. Unfortunately, with the makeup of the Senate, you know, people that were our strong allies on the ag committee, uh, they are no longer in the Senate. And one of the problems we face, and I have no problem talking about this because if you live in Minnesota, you are one of the most important people in my life at this current moment, which is the ranking Democrat member on the agricultural committee that's gonna control the Democratic voice for this is Senator Klobuchar, and she doesn't exactly have the best track record when it comes to animal welfare.
And we're getting a lot of pushback in getting her to commit to vote no on this and to fight for this. And so if you live in Minnesota, please reach out to me. Please reach out to your senators, and we need you more than probably anyone. Your, your voice matters probably exponentially more because we really need to make sure that the senators from Minnesota stand up against this because they have a lot of power in the agricultural committee.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, that's really good to know. I, you know, I, I lose track of all of this and, uh, and well, is Se- is Senator-- Uh, this is such an unfair question, but is Senator Gillibrand on the Agriculture committee.
I know She's not.
Been a big proponent of the Dairy Pride Act, which just pisses me off because there's so much, uh, dairy in, in Upstate New York, but I didn't know whether she...
So she doesn't really have that much clout. Um, but
still very important, but,
not.
like Klobuchar.
Matthew Dominguez: We need every senator. Uh, so when you think about who we need, um, from a process standpoint, uh, the House passed the Farm Bill. Now, in most situations, uh, a bill will just cross over from one chamber and be delivered to another chamber for consideration. It will go into a committee, it'll be debated, it will go to the floor, and that's usually how it happens.
But when it comes to the Farm Bill, what typically happens and what's happening now is the House will draft a Farm Bill, it will run it first, it will pass it, and then the Senate will draft their own Farm Bill. So we're in the Ag Committee right now in the Senate where they're drafting their own version of the Farm Bill.
This is our best opportunity to keep the Save Our Bacon Act language from being in the bill in the first place. If we don't win on that, we're then gonna have to strip it with an amendment in committee, and then there's a rules committee, and then there's a floor, and then there's when the two chambers pass a Farm Bill, then there's reconciliation, uh, that happens between the two committees, and we have a chance there, and then there's the veto by President Trump.
So there's a lot of bites at the apple here, but the best opportunity we have is right now to keep the language out of the Farm Bill in the Senate. And if it's out of the Senate side, it's likely not going to end up in the final bill that goes to Trump. But when you're talking about people who are important right now, it is the Republicans and Democrats that are on the Ag Committee.
And what we're talking about here is you have Adam Schiff in California, you have Bennet in Colorado, you have Minnesota with Klobuchar, you have Warnock in Georgia. Um, but then also one person who's very important and want to tell folks that live in New York, on Thursday night, Compassion in World Farming and Voters for Animal Rights and a few other groups, we're hosting a town hall for people who live in the state of New York.
Now, the reason why New York is so important is not because either of our senators sit on the Ag Committee, but as we know, Schumer, Senator, uh, Chuck Schumer is the minority leader for the Democrats in the Senate, so he has a tremendous amount of power. So if you're able to come to our town hall on Thursday from seven to eight o'clock Eastern Time, please show up.
We'll tell you how to get active and how to help ensure that the two senators from New York stand up against this. And Gillibrand has a lot of power because she's also a very-- she's been in the Senate for a very long time, so she has a lot of power.
Mariann Sullivan: So all right. So if the Senate, if we manage to win here and the Senate passes a version of the Farm Bill that doesn't have this and is different from the House version, my understanding, which is limited, I admit, is that it will go to some kind of conference committee and they'll work out the changes.
I have seen situations, I don't remember what the issue was, but you probably do. I don't know, you were probably working on it, where actually both the Senate and the House passed animal-friendly, something that was basically animal-friendly, and they still stripped it out in the conference committee. I mean, it had been passed by both Houses.
So there's a, there's still a lot of, a lot of trips and falls possible, right?
Matthew Dominguez: Uh, yeah, it's, it's never-- it's l- it's almost never a sure thing. And here's the thing is even after, let's say... No, I'm just gonna make a declaration. We are gonna win this because people are gonna step up, and we are absolutely gonna win on the Farm Bill. We still have the standalone Save Our Bacon Act. We still have every other piece of legislation that they're gonna try to slip this language in.
And so we have to be diligent when it comes to making sure that we are consistently on guard and making it very clear to not only representatives in the House but also the Senate that this language will not be tolerated by their constituents. But we have to be vigilant through the entire process. So even if we don't get it in the Senate version, we have to make sure that when it does go to the conference committee, uh, that that language is not reinserted and the House is able to put it back in.
So yeah, it's-- the, the battle's never fully over, but I will say when we win on the Farm Bill and this vehicle is no longer an option for the factory farming interest, I think we're in a pretty great place when it comes to keeping this at bay for the next couple years. And what's really important, and this moment in time is so critical, is because we're at 50% cage-free roughly on gestation crates and battery cages, and I think veal crates is probably significantly higher now.
So when you're talking about the extreme confinement that we're trying to ensure that we protect here for mother pigs and for egg-laying hens and for veal calves, the next couple years, by 2030, we're gonna be beyond the tipping point where I think the industry is going to have to, because of corporate pressure and also policy pressure, that they're gonna have to convert over.
So this really, this moment in time is the most important moment to prevent this from passing, because in five years from now, when the Farm Bill is reconsidered, the industry will have already moved away from extreme confinement, and I highly doubt that they're gonna even try to pass this because there's no incentive for doing it because the industry has already moved.
So I said this before, and I will say this again for all of you, this is the meteor headed towards Earth that will wipe out decades of work, millions of hours, and millions of dollars that have been put into the farm animal protection movement, and we need to protect this like our life is dependent on it because millions and millions of lives are dependent on it.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, Yeah, and I-- when we're done talking about the bill itself, I wanna talk a little bit more about the big theory of what's next for the animal protection movement and the role that these laws have in it. Uh, there was just one thing I wanted to check on first, just a little bit of an aside.
This is the pork industry, right? Like, like
Matthew Dominguez: Yeah.
Mariann Sullivan: it's not really the egg industry or certainly not the veal industry. The-- it's pork.
Matthew Dominguez: It's pork.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah.
Matthew Dominguez: I mean, I, I would say that if you were to rank factory farming interests and you were to rank the different, uh, species-specific associations, the NPPC, the National Pork Producers, are by far the most stubborn, uh, the cruelest, and the, the ones that do not represent not only their own interests because, uh, you know, no matter where you fall on the spectrum of, you know, being a carnivore or, you know, a vegan or vegetarian, whatever it is, you know, there are family farmers, and there are farmers out there that are at least doing a little bit higher welfare, and they're moving away from cruel gestation crates.
Even they are pissed off at their own trade association, which is the NPPC, because the NPPC is spending millions of dollars that should otherwise be going to farmers, uh, to fight an unwinnable battle. Here's the thing, if we don't win on the Farm Bill and this passes, we will keep fighting.
Gestation crates will not be in use, uh, whether it's five years from now or 10 years from now because the one thing is we will never give up. But it is the pork producers lobby that is pushing this the hardest. And so that should also give many of your, your folks that, you know, if you do consume animal products, just think about the people that are doing the worst for animals are the pork producers and the NPPC who are fighting to strip away your state's rights from passing food safety and animal protection laws.
Makes you really think about what you should do when you go in the grocery store.
Mariann Sullivan: I remember years ago, the egg industry had basically signed-- I mean, you probably were involved in this, signed off,
Matthew Dominguez: that.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, on, on legislation that, what do you know? It wasn't, like, great. It wasn't even, like, cage-free. It was, it was bigger cages.
But it was something, and signed off on federal legislation, and it was the pork industry that came in and put the kibosh on it. The egg industry was fine with it. It's crazy. These people are nuts.
Matthew Dominguez: Yeah, so the, the United Egg Producers and the egg industry came together in an agreement with the Humane Society of the United States, and I worked on this, where we went to Congress and said, "We want to work together to regulate to ban the barren battery cage," which is the extreme confinement housing system for egg-laying hens, and the egg industry asked the government to regulate them, to help move their industry forward into something that was at least a little bit better. And it was the pork producers that fought and killed that effort, because again they just don't want regulations. I mean, what does that tell you about an industry that doesn't want laws to safeguard the public and the creatures in their care?
It tells you everything you need to know.
Jasmin Singer: I'm also kind of in my head taking a trip down memory lane 'cause from like 1,000 feet high, I, I got involved in animal protection work in like 2004, I think. But I feel like 2007 when I worked on Prop 2 was kind of the-- for me personally, it was like, okay, then I was like in, in. And when I look back at, you know, w- the very basic, the very basic things we were fighting for, this is nearly 20 years ago, and I look at what's going on now, I have to admit it's, it's disheartening. You've been working forever also in this world. Are you disheartened too? Or am I just being like, you know, Mariann gets mad at me when I call myself this, but once again, am I being just a curmudgeonly Gen Xer?
Are you a curmudgeonly Gen Xer too, Matt?
Matthew Dominguez: I am unhappy with the state of the, the, the world when it comes to where we're at on farm animals, but I remain unbelievably optimistic and hopeful. You're right. When you think about a decade ago, we were still working on laws and, and let's remind people, Prop 12 and question three, when you read the language of this law, it allows for mother pigs and egg-laying hens and veal calves to stand up, turn around, and extend their limb.
That's it. I mean, I don't think that there... I mean, the fact that that needs to be a law is absolutely insane to me, but that is the, the minimum we are asking for here and what our laws are and what they're trying to strip from us with this dangerous language in the Farm Bill. But I will also tell you, we ha-- if you zoom out and you think about just the-- if you think about the fight that we're in, we're talking about an industry that is a billion times larger than us.
I mean, I've used this before, but when you think about David and Goliath, like we're not even David. We're not even the slingshot. We're, we're the pebble in the slingshot compared to Goliath. I mean, the, the, the, uh, accumulation of all of the money that goes into the farm animal protection, uh, movement in the United States, if you were to put that into a bucket then you were to compare that to, say, the marketing budget of, say, Tyson or Smithfield or JBS or even some of these smaller pork producers or smaller egg producers, we are outspent, we are outnumbered, and the fact that we have been able to win is nothing more than extraordinary.
And so I remain optimistic. I remain pissed off that we're not making more progress. I demand more. I want more, but I am still hopeful. Um, I really do think, um, that we are going to continue winning, I think it's gonna accelerate. I actually think in the next decade, what we're gonna see is kind of a, a slow ascending to animal welfare.
But as we tip over with cruel confinement and other work that we're doing, I do think that we're gonna see an acceleration in the animal welfare work that we're doing, and that in the next 20 years we're gonna look back and be like, "Wow, I cannot believe how much progress we've made in the last 10 years."
But there's that accelerator effect that's gonna be happening, I think, in the 2030s
Jasmin Singer: I'm glad to hear that.
Mariann Sullivan: I, want to get back to details 'cause I just re- there's some people I'm sure listening who have never called. Like, maybe they don't want to admit that, but they've never called their legislators. Um, most people probably have, but can we just get very basic? How do you find out who to call?
Who do you call? Who's likely to answer the phone? Exactly what do you say? Just really basic.
Matthew Dominguez: I think it's really important to note that, yeah, oftentimes when, when you get an action alert or you get a call to action, there's really two things that we ask people do, which is to call your representative, whether it's a senator or your state legislator, whatever it is, or your mayor, your governor.
Most people opt for the email option because email option is safe, Like, they feel like, " Oh, I can just in-- I can just put in my address, and it sends a pre-populated email, and I don't have to do a lot of work. But I don't think it's the fact that people don't want to do something brave, it's not that they don't wanna call.
It's that people are scared, or people are nervous about doing it. In one of the videos, there's been a couple videos that have been going out, like Leah Garcés did one and then Hannah over at THL and a few others did it, where they actually, on Instagram video, they, they called their representative or their senator, uh, on camera and showed just how easy it is.
And so what's important to do is, hopefully, I don't know if you guys can flash on the screen or have this information 'cause I don't have it, uh, memorized in my head, but there is a phone number that you call that is the switchboard for Congress. Um, and what you do is you tell them, uh, you know, it's just a, a wonderful person or people that answer the phone, and you say, "I would like to be connected to my senator's or my representative's office."
Simple as that. They'll ask you the question, uh, "What's your zip code?" And then once you give them their zip code, they will tell you, "Okay, I'm connecting you to your senator," or, "I'm connecting you to your representative."
The person who's answering the phone in this office is, is potentially an intern. It's a staffer. You're not calling the senator. You're not calling the representative. You're not talking to anybody that is gonna be combative to you. You don't need to know all the details that unfortunately live inside my head when it comes to the intricacies of what we're talking about here. All you have to say is, "I want my senator," or, "I want my representative," in this case it's your senator, "to know that I want them to vote no on the Farm Bill if it includes the Save Our Bacon Act."
It's really as simple as that. They will say thank you, and they will make a note in their computer, and it will be tallied. What we need here are numbers because when those staffers, the staffer of the agricultural committee or their policy staffer or their chief of staff goes and sits down with the senator when there is a vote in front of them, they will say, "We got fourteen thousand calls asking you to vote no."
That has an impact. So of course, emailing your senators is incredibly important, but that phone call means even more. And if you wanna go an extra mile, make sure that when you see videos that are calling people to action, to share them, to comment on them because it boosts it through the algorithm so more people see it, so more people take action.
In addition to that, post on social media, whether it's on X or Instagram or Facebook, tag your senators, tag your representatives, and tell them how you feel about this issue and that you want them to vote no. They represent you in Congress. They are supposed to do the will of the people, and unfortunately, if the people don't tell them what to do, then they're free to do their own thing, and oftentimes in the interest of corporations.
So I promise you it's very easy. It takes forty-five seconds to a minute, and it makes a huge difference.
Mariann Sullivan: It occurs to me that it's probably even harder for people to do this than it used to be because who makes phone calls anymore? I mean, how long has it been since you made a phone call without first texting the person? I mean, nobody does that anymore, so it's very unfamiliar. The number is 202-224-3121.
And I would suggest also make sure you mention that you're a constituent, and you might want to mention where you live, um, uh, so that they know it's not just, you know, Matt Dominguez making all the calls.
Matthew Dominguez: Yeah. So exactly. So it's important, like you said. You can just say, like in my case, if I was calling Schumer or Gillibrand, I'd say, "Hi, my name is Matt Dominguez. I live in Bushwick, New York." Uh, more than happy for people to know where I live. Uh, um, "And I'm calling to ask my senators to oppose a Farm Bill and vote no on a Farm Bill that includes the Save Our Bacon Act.
This is really important to me. I really don't, uh, support stealing states' rights." However you want to word it, but that's really all you have to say. So, yeah, make sure you tell them that you're a constituent and the city that you live in.
Jasmin Singer: And we will have that information in the show notes as well for people who are, uh, driving, right now.
Mariann Sullivan: If you're driving, don't try to jot it down.
Jasmin Singer: Or on the treadmill or something.
Uh, so what is the timing at this point? Like, how long do you think it will be before the Senate produces its version of the Farm Bill?
Matthew Dominguez: That's another great question, timing here, and there's an urgency that is at play. I do think it's important to note what happened in the House. So the, the Farm Bill in the committee got a vote very quickly. The amendments got up very quickly. It went into the Rules Committee nearly overnight.
We were supposed to, and we were told our amendment would get consideration. It didn't. We then heard from Speaker Johnson, and he told reporters, and it was in Politico, and he told other members that because there was so much, uh, frustration and anger around the liability shield and the Save Our Bacon Act, he told everyone that we are going to, uh, we are gonna pull the bill off the floor back to committee, and then we're gonna go to recess, um, or we're gonna go to a break, and then we're gonna come back, and we're gonna see this in the middle of May. They then, in the middle of the night, the same day, held debate, and then early in the morning, they passed the Farm Bill.
So again, our representatives, because they don't think that they're being watched, will do whatever they can. They will be shady. They will bend the rules. They will act not in the best interest of democracy to try to push this through because they know they don't have the votes. In the Senate, this is what we're hearing now, but this is also why it's important to stay in the loop when it comes to the folks that are talking about this issue, particularly me.
If you follow me on Instagram, you can kind of get up to date with exactly where we're at. But what we're hearing is that the Senate Ag Committee is looking to have their draft ready to vote out of committee by the end of May. So we're talking about a couple weeks now. They are currently pen to paper or keyboard to screen when it comes to drafting this bill right now.
We need the Save Our Bacon Act language to not be included. And so the time is of the essence. Like if you can call now, call now, call an hour, call tomorrow, call as soon as possible and get as many friends and family to do the same. But we're talking about a couple weeks here to do what is arguably the most important thing that you can do for animals in this particular moment.
And I said this on my original Instagram reel that I put out when this was first starting to move. If you only do one thing for animals all year, this is the thing to do. It's to fight this language like lives depend on it because millions of lives do.
Mariann Sullivan: So, all right, worst case scenario, and I know you don't want to think about any backup plans, but, uh, just in case.
Matthew Dominguez: It's important to prepare the worst.
Mariann Sullivan: It passes. Not a lot of Democratic support. And then, well, this is not worst case scenario, the Democrats take the House and the Senate in November. there any going back or is it done?
Matthew Dominguez: I mean, there's always you can always introduce a bill. We won't see another Farm Bill for four or five years. I mean, this Farm Bill is already two years late. If it gives you any perspective on just how incompetent our Congress is when it gets when it is getting their work done.
I mean, imagine if you had a project at your job and then you were two years late, you'd get fired. But unfortunately, these representatives just keep going. But this is it. I mean, I don't see the ability in the near future to reverse this or to strip that language out again.
I actually I don't know the answer to this, but someone asked me the question, if this passes, would we then have to go back and reenact all of the laws that were stripped down?
And I don't know the answer to that because I am certainly not an expert when it comes to the intricacies of constitutional law, when it comes to this type of thing. So this is the moment. Losing is not an option. And so this is the time for us to take action.
Mariann Sullivan: All right. The job is before us.
Matthew Dominguez: We've got this.
Mariann Sullivan: Before I let you go, I want to go a little big picture. I mean, I'm sure there are people who are listening, and you know this as well as I do, that the whole thing, the whole underlying goal here, which is the goal of the vast majority of the institutional animal protection movement, getting rid of gestation crate, the battery cage, is not good enough.
It's not even good maybe. Like i-i-it, it, it's either so weak... I mean, PETA just came out with a big report. We're not just talking about, like, some random activists. This, PETA just came out with a big report that cage-free production is, is, is terrible. All right. This is a kind of a big topic to end up a very short interview with, But uh, can you, can you just explain the position why you disagree? And maybe, like, a bigger theory of change on how these small reforms are going to lead to something better, which I think we all want.
We want better than just getting rid of gestation crates.
Matthew Dominguez: Of course. I mean, uh, if, if we are going to raise animals to be consumed, they need to be raised with the highest level of welfare. We need to reduce the, uh, most amount of suffering that we possibly can. And I know that there's gonna be disagreements, and there are disagreements, and I think important disagreements and debates and conversations around theories of change.
I have my own belief. I mean, I, I-- there's a reason I work at Compassion in World Farming. There's a reason why I work with companies and work with producers to move the needle because I do believe progress begets progress. Um, the vast majority of us, that many of us that are plant-based that do work on these issues, we weren't born this way.
Maybe we were in our brains, but we weren't born knowing about this issue, caring about this issue, and deciding to dedicate our lives to fix this issue. It was because of a welfare campaign. It was because of people talking to me and saying, "Listen, shouldn't a pig at least be able to stand up and turn around?"
And so there's a lot of people that have gotten involved because of raising the level of conversation around that pigs and chickens and cows and turkeys and goats and all of these animals at least deserve protection. And then once you believe that they deserve protection, you start putting them in your, your circle of moral consideration.
And then there's other groups that do great work to kind of expand upon that. But what we're talking about here, and I fundamentally disagree, I have many friends that work at, work at PETA, and I personally think that the white paper, the quote-unquote white paper they put out is a hack job. I've had multiple poultry scientists that are animal advocates look at it.
The science is not great. They cherry-pick statistics. And I think it's important to note, when you're talking about welfare, in a battery cage, there is no welfare. I don't care what you do to the battery cage. I don't care if you have music playing and you talk sweet nothings into the ears of the chicken.
There is zero welfare. It is pure unadulterated suffering for these animals. Now, in a cage-free system, there is at least welfare that can be had. In some producers like Kipster and others, I think it's actually relatively high welfare. Now, we can disagree about whether or not they should be in production in the first place or if they should be killed, and that's a different conversation.
But what we're talking about here is the reduction of suffering while they're being used in these systems. There is zero doubt, and frankly, there is no credible evidence that supports that cage-free is worse than a battery cage. Now, you can have cage-free facilities that are low welfare and bad producers, and of course, we are gonna work on that.
But I will tell you the work that we have done to eradicate the barren battery cage, nearly 50% of a conversion into cage-free, raising the level of conversations around chickens. We are talking about over the course of the last decade, we have removed over 140 or 150 million birds from the worst housing system that has ever been created for animals.
It is likely the largest reduction of suffering that has ever happened by humans. I mean, of course, we caused the suffering, but you're talking about 140 million birds that have had their suffering reduced significantly. I don't think that that is something that we should just throw away and be like, "Well, it's not good enough."
Granted, I agree. It's not good enough. We need to do better. But when you think about these birds, when you think about their lives, and if you were trapped in a cage and you were able to not be in those cages, your life would be better. It's worth consideration, and it is a reduction of suffering. And we can't let perfection be the enemy of the good.
Good is better than nothing, and I do believe that it is not just gonna stop at good. I think it will continue, and every other social justice movement that works on these types of issues has demonstrated that incremental work goes further than trying to take a purview of just all or nothing. If this were all or nothing, I don't think we make any progress.
But that's again, I'm happy to be wrong, and I do believe there's some phenomenal people out there working on other issues like vegan outreach and plant-based work, and I support them and I love them. And again, I've said this before, death by a thousand cuts. We will end factory farming by all of us working on different work streams, theories of change, and I do believe that this work is playing a critical component to that as well, and that's why we need to protect these laws that we passed.
Mariann Sullivan: Well, I, I mean, it's a fascinating conversation. Obviously, everybody in this movement is part of that conversation and has different things to say. And I don't, want to feel like people are gonna think that I'm, I only gave you, uh, something to say and, and not everybody else. I- mean, but people who, who listen I think know that, that I, uh, I, I, like to refer to, um, cage free production as a higher circle of hell, and I think that's fair.
And if you, if the best you can do is move somebody to a higher circle of hell, that's what you should do. I'm still unsure about the long-term theory of change, but I'm unsure about the long-term theory of change about all of it, so, uh, nobody's yet found the way to fix this.
Matthew Dominguez: I completely agree, and I don't disagree with you at all. I mean, it's, it's not good enough. I mean, one thing that I ask people often is, you know, that some of the systems that we're working towards, would you put your companion animals in those systems? And if the answer is no, if it's not good enough for your dog or cat, then it's certainly not good enough for a chicken or pig or cow.
But then again, better is better. There is a reduction of suffering. And, and, and again, this is just my opinion and the opinion of a lot of people in the movement, but I welcome people's disagreement. And I actually really appreciate when I'm challenged on these issues because what I believe to be true in the effective theories of change ten years ago, many of them I don't agree with anymore.
But it took us as a community, we are all on the same side, and we are all working together. And what I don't want to see happening is us infighting with each other because it's about the animals, and it shouldn't be about who's right and who's wrong, but working together because there are so few of us.
There are so few people that are fighting for farm animals in this country and globally.
We need to be united in that we are working together to change the course of history for farm animals. Now, we're not gonna always agree, but we certainly shouldn't be getting in each other's ways.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. I, I mean, not getting in anyone's ways is a good goal, and I think there is so much less of that than there used to be. So, uh, so everybody sees how huge the stakes are and, you know, all of these animals just in, in our very, very few hands to, um, try to do something about it. We've kept you for immeasurably longer than we intended to, but there was really a lot to, um, to hear about and this is obviously a crucial moment, uh, for, for this bill and, and the stakes are high.
So, so thanks so much for joining us today, Matt, um, and for all of your information.
Matthew Dominguez: Thank you so much for having me, and thank you for all the work that you all do to raise awareness about these important issues.
Mariann Sullivan: And thanks guys out there for tuning in. Don't forget to subscribe, like, and comment wherever you listen to the podcast or on YouTube. And we'll see you next time.
-
_____________________________________________
Thank you for listening to the Our Hen House podcast! If you enjoy our podcasts, believe in our mission to effectively mainstream the movement to end the exploitation of animals, find community and solace in our shows and resources, and would like to show your support for vegan indie media, please make a donation today.
Contributions of any amount will go towards our fundraising goal and are hugely appreciated. Our Hen House is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, so it’s tax-deductible. Thank you for helping us create quality content!
Subscribe to our show on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or your favorite podcatcher, and don’t forget to leave a 5-star review!
Check out Our Hen House’s other podcasts: The Animal Law Podcast, The Teaching Jasmin How to Cook Vegan Podcast, and the Antiracism in Animal Advocacy Audio Series.
Follow us on social media! You can find Our Hen House on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or Bluesky.
The Our Hen House theme song is written and performed by Michael Harren.