Sarah King is a law student in the HLS Food Law & Policy Clinic and a guest contributor to this blog.
On November 14th, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry held a hearing to discuss the use of artificial intelligence in agriculture. They heard from several expert witnesses in the agriculture and technology field, including Dr. Mason Earles, Professor at UC Davis; Sanjeev Krishnan, Chief Investment Officer and Senior Managing Director of S2G Ventures; Dr. José-Marie Griffiths, President of Dakota State University; Dr. Jahmy Hindman, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at John Deere; and Todd J. Janzen, President of Janzen Schroeder Agriculture Law and Administrator of Ag Data Transparent.
The witnesses and the Committee, led by Chairwoman Stabenow (D – Michigan), discussed how AI can be and is used in the agriculture industry, concerns with implementing AI, and policy recommendations moving forward.
AI Uses in Farming
One of the main ways that the witnesses described AI being used in farming is through what they call “precision agriculture.” Dr. Earles gave the example of an algorithm being trained to recognize the difference between a nightshade weed and carrots in a field. Then, sprayers can be programmed to only deploy herbicide to target the unwanted weeds. John Deere sells this technology and calls it “See & Spray.” Dr. Griffiths explained that precision agriculture such as this can help farmers be more efficient by allowing them to “use their resources sparingly.”
Farmers can also use AI in the stereotypical way that we might think of it – by asking questions and receiving answers. Dr. Earles said that AI could take on the role of “advisors” to farmers. He said that there are not enough USDA Extension Agents, and AI could help to fill the gaps.
Obstacles and Concerns with Implementation
Of course, implementing new technology raises questions for both farmers and policy makers. A few major areas of concern arose during the hearing: data privacy, cybersecurity, broadband access, and equity concerns.
Dr. Janzen said that farmers are reluctant to share their data because they do not necessarily trust the platforms, and they have privacy concerns. He also said that there are “overly complex technical agreements,” making it unclear to farmers exactly what their data is being used for and where it is going. Dr. Hinman echoed the sentiment that farmers value being able to control and protect their data.
Dr. Griffiths explained the cybersecurity risks associated with increased use of AI in the agriculture industry. She urged the committee to have “a heightened concern for cyber national security that involves the acquisition of land by unfriendly nations, especially in sensitive areas or close proximity to critical infrastructure and agricultural areas.” She said that just like other computer programs, systems in agriculture have the potential to be hacked, and described how when Russia invaded Ukraine, tractors were stopped, and we need to be “enhancing security of farm vehicles.”
Broadband access was brought up by several committee members, and the witnesses agreed that we need better broadband access if AI in farming is going to reach its full potential. There has been significant investment in broadband in recent years, but there are still improvements to be made. Since 2018, USDA has invested over $1 billion dollars into broadband expansion through the ReConnect Program, but they estimate that “22.3 percent of Americans in rural areas“ lack adequate coverage.
Equity is a concern because, as Dr. Hindman said, “the technologies that we are talking about are expensive,” and this is a barrier to entry. Smaller and lower income farmers, and those with limited or no broadband access, are at a disadvantage when it comes to reaping the benefits of new technology and AI. Mr. Krishnan said that disparities could increase due to different levels of access.
Policy Recommendations
There was agreement among the witnesses that increasing broadband access is key. Senator Deb Fischer (R – Nebraska) talked about the bill she recently proposed with Senator Ben Ray Luján (D – New Mexico), the Linking Access to Spur Technology for Agriculture Connectivity in Rural Environments (LAST ACRE) Act. The Act would create a new program at USDA to help farmers get broadband access across their farmland and would update the Census of Agriculture to gather more data about broadband access on farmland.
Mr. Janzen focused on the need for transparency when it comes to how farmers’ data is being used. He discussed the Ag Data Transparent project as a method to encourage transparency. Companies who wish to receive an Ag Data Transparent certification answer a set of questions about how they use and store data, and companies with acceptable answers are allowed to advertise their certification.
Dr. Griffiths said that we need to “support the expansion of agricultural research focused on AI to help increase the sustainability of the agriculture industry.” She recommended that “in line with the USDA’s Urban Service Centers and the U.S. Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) recent Tech Hubs Program aimed at boosting the technological ecosystem for the U.S. to achieve global leadership, similar hubs or regions should be established for research in AI and agriculture.” To address the need for more experts in the field, she said that “we are going to have to look at legal immigration.”
Mr. Krishnan said that we need more investment in agricultural technology. In his written testimony, he said that “to succeed and scale, we need to take a systems approach to continue developing these solutions – including through private capital investment, government and public sector investment, philanthropic funding and other creative, collaborative delivery mechanisms.”
Overall, the witnesses and committee members were optimistic and excited about the potential improvements that AI could bring to the agriculture industry, even though they acknowledged that there may be growing pains as the technology rapidly advances.
The full hearing and the written testimony of each witness can be accessed here.
If you’re interested in learning more about the current proposed legislation on broadband, check out our Overview of the Rural Broadband Marker Bills.
The views and opinions expressed on the FBLE Blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FBLE. While we review posts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the reliability and completeness of any legal analysis presented; posts on this Blog do not constitute legal advice. If you discover an error, please reach out to contact@farmbilllaw.org.
Photo credit: Jeremy Avery