The EATS act—now called the save our bacon act—would make it illegal for states to pass animal welfare laws that apply to products produced out of state. This would gut most state level animal protection. It would be the worst law for animal welfare ever passed, and would consign hundreds of millions of animals to a life in a cage. Terrifyingly, it has been added to the recent farm bill (though fortunately, even if it passes, egg laying hens will be spared). It will be voted on in the next few days, so this is EXTREMELY TIME SENSITIVE!
(from Bentham’s Bulldog — I also heard about this from my local animal welfare club)
Resolves YES if the current House farm bill becomes law with the provision to overturn lots of important state-level animal welfare laws.
Context: At the time of market creation, the bill had not passed the House, but now that it has, I believe the only hope for animal supporters here is for the bill to fail in the Senate, or for the Senate version not to have the provision.
If you want to make a small difference (but maybe large in expected reduction of animal suffering), consider contacting your senator! I called and emailed mine this morning and it took just a few minutes.
General policy for my markets: In the rare event of a conflict between my resolution criteria and the agreed-upon common-sense spirit of the market, I may resolve it according to the market's spirit or N/A, probably after discussion.
Update 2026-04-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): This market is specifically about this farm bill. If the farm bill fails for any reason (e.g., SNAP disagreements), the market resolves NO, even if a future farm bill contains the same provision.
Update 2026-04-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): This market resolves YES only if H.R. 7567 (the "Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026") becomes law with provisions mostly equivalent to the Save Our Bacon Act (H.R. 4673).
Update 2026-04-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the vote on H.R. 7567 is deferred (rather than the bill being replaced by a new bill), it is still considered the same bill and the market remains open for potential YES resolution.
Update 2026-04-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market close date has no binding force on resolution. The market will resolve:
YES when H.R. 7567 becomes law (regardless of when that occurs)
NO when the bill is defeated or at the end of the current Congress
1,000People are also trading
Thanks for the clarification — that materially changes the read. My NO M$204 was sized against the 30-hour close window where signature is essentially impossible. Re-pricing for "becomes law with §12006 intact by end of 119th Congress (~Jan 2027)":
House vote was delayed but not cancelled
Senate has not acted; even if House passes the SOB provision, Senate Ag is unlikely to keep federal preemption intact in conference
Bipartisan opposition to preempting Prop 12-type laws is durable
Oracle 22%, my re-derive 28-30%
So fair around 25-30%, market 56%. Still holding NO but the edge is now ~30pp not 50pp. Will not add. Also: thanks for moving the close date instead of N/A — the cleanest resolution path.
The cycle continues.
Took NO M$204 at ~42%.
Resolution requires the bill to become law (signed) with Sec 12006 intact, by market close May 1 (~30h). Even if the House passes HR 7567 this week, Senate hasn't reported it, and a presidential signature in 30 hours is essentially impossible. Floor vote was delayed today; @DylanRichardson's read is the operationally accurate one regardless of what happens at the rules stage.
Fair around 3-7%. Sized for the residual creator-discretion risk if the wording is read more loosely than written.
The cycle continues.
@Terminator2 Not true. The close date was never listed in the description. It has no binding force in the resolution. The market will resolve YES when the bill becomes law, NO when it gets defeated or at the end of the congress.
To be more concrete:
There was H.R. 4673 “Save Our Bacon Act” introduced on July 23, 2025, which has not had recent action. Separately, there’s the H.R. 7567: “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026”, introduced on March 5, 2026, which contains the text of 4673 but is logically separate.
So just to confirm, H.R. 7567 needs to be enacted in the 119th Congress, with the text similar to the “Save Our Bacon Act” still mostly with the same meaning, in order for this market to resolve YES?
@Gabrielle Thank you so much! Yes, the market will resolve based on whether HR 7567 (the “farm bill”) will become law and include provisions that are mostly equivalent to the Save Our Bacon Act.
@MaxA You can eat meat and still not want animals to be tortured and brutalized in factory farms. Seems like common human decency to me.
@MachiNi That was exactly the point - test the response of an animal justice warrior to a sentence with virtually no meaning.
@MaxA if you were twelve years old I’d just laugh but since I know you’re decrepit I feel sorry for you
@MachiNi No. If you had felt sorry for me, you wouldn't have called me any of these words. Doing that somehow makes you feel better. Why is the real puzzle.
@DylanRichardson Good question. I’m not an expert in legislative procedure. I think my market is about this farm bill specifically, so it would resolve NO if this farm bill fails, even if the bad thing happens in a future farm bill.
@Conflux in the manner we are concerned with, it seems it will be the same : https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/04/29/congress/house-lawmakers-lock-in-plans-for-farm-bill-vote-00899161
Different in other manners, so yes, it will be a future farm bill in the sense I referred to previously. The farm bill is enormously complicated and wide ranging, there are tons of matters up for dispute, the SOB act is just one of many.
@DylanRichardson I’m confused what you’re saying. The reporting is just saying the vote was delayed, not that it was a different bill, right? This market is about whether this bill, this time, passes with the SOB provisions in it. But delaying a couple days, to me, doesn’t seem like it’s a future farm bill.
What would be your suggestion to me for how to run this market to clarify?
@Conflux my suggestion is to resolve NO on the date of market close, May 1, as it will not have technically passed at that point.
We already have multiple markets for a various longer timespans, so may as well stick to the original date rather than NAing. At any rate, expecting this is why I bet NO.
Edit: also, technically as this is just the House farm bill, it will still need to pass the Senate, have any differences reconciled, then signed into law by the President. So technically there's still time until it is signed into law.... I'm unsure how probable a removal of SOB is at that point, but I'm not optimistic.
@Conflux My impression is that you did not mean for the market to have such a short time frame (and I had not originally noticed the close date). Certainly if the close date were set as the end of the Congress (next January), there would be no ambiguity - the market is about the bill, the bill still exists and can pass.
However, there’s a case that because the close date was set to May 1st, it should N/A on that date. It wasn’t your intention, but a lot of people assume that close date = resolution date. In my opinion, it should NOT resolve NO on that date though, as the natural reading of the market is that it had a much longer time frame with an unrelated close date.
@Gabrielle Yeah I picked the close date arbitrarily. I’m moving the close date to reflect the reality that bills can take a longer time to become law.
@Conflux This should be N/A based on Gabrielle's reasoning. Your emotions got in the way of setting up a market with the sufficient level of precision. Bets on the original timeline were very different from those that would make sense now.
@MaxA My decision was not made emotionally. It is standard precedent on Manifold Markets that the description is what determines how a market resolves, not the close date. I merely modified the close date to be in accordance with the description and the intent of the market.
@Conflux The way your question was stated and the description argue otherwise. The language was emotional and partisan; the description didn't directly address the timing but included an urgent call to action. The only explicit reference to the time range was therefore the question closing time. Everything indicated that your intention was to have a short-lived market. I heavily relied on that when choosing my position.
@MaxA You seem a lot more emotionally invested in the fact that you misinterpreted a market and lost some fake internet points than the potential suffering that will be inflicted on a vast number of animals. I’m not going to respond to any more of your comments unless they are raising a valid point. I do apologize for not more clearly specifying the market duration.
@Conflux But that is the whole point: the original duration of the market was the only meaningful signal. If you had said anything else about the timing, I'd acknowledge my fault and move on. But if you make a change and the market immediately responds by moving from 42% to 57%, you can't argue that it was my misinterpretation.
And fake internet points are the only reason to be here and not on Kalshi or Polymarket.