Orly Levy is a law student in the HLS Food Law & Policy Clinic and a guest contributor to this blog.
Background
The shift towards large-scale industrial animal farming has transformed the landscape of American farming over the past few decades. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) have out-competed smaller, family-owned farms, decreasing the number of livestock farmers in the US by 80%. Criticized for their environmental effects, public health impacts, and animal abuse, CAFOs have been at the heart of numerous debates between policymakers. Given that CAFOs often operate outside of environmental regulations, the next farm bill provides a critical opportunity to increase CAFO regulation and mitigate their environmental, ethical, and economic implications.
The Farm System Reform Act
In February 2023, Representative Ro Khanna and Senator Cory Booker reintroduced the Farm System Reform Act (FSRA). The FSRA is a bold proposal that aims to address concerns associated with CAFOs by placing a moratorium on the establishment and expansions of these operations, phasing them out by January 1, 2041. To ease the transition, the proposal would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide grants to owners of eligible animal feed operations (AFOs) to help them pay off related debt and shift towards other agricultural practices. If passed, FSRA would hold integrators responsible for disposal of waste and dead animals, and liable for the discharge of pollutants, contamination, adverse health impacts, and property diminution caused by AFOs.
While the bill might have significant economic implications, proponents argue that such a measure is necessary to protect the environment, animals, and human welfare. Elizabeth Warren, a co-sponsor the Act, stated that the Act would give “our farmers, workers, and consumers real bargaining power in our farms and food systems.” Over 200 organizations have voiced their support for the FSRA.
Opposing CAFO Regulations
On the other side, many policymakers are fighting back against CAFO regulation. For example, there is a bill making its way through the legislature in Wisconsin that would block local governments from enacting regulations for CAFOs – including implementing stronger animal protections. This is significant because Wisconsin is home to at least 300 of these establishments, generating billions of dollars every year. Supporters introduced this bill in response to a voter proposition adopted in California which requires more space for farm animals, afraid of the potential economic harms that stricter regulations could bring.
On the federal level, there have been several legislative attempts aimed at reducing regulations in the animal agricultural sector. For example, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act aimed to exempt CAFOs from reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Supporters of this bill argue for the necessity of reducing bureaucratic hurdles to support the agricultural economy, emphasizing the need to protect farmers and ranchers from what they perceive as burdensome regulations. Policymakers fear that these sorts of regulations could drive up the cost of production, leading to higher food prices and negatively impacting American agriculture on the global scale.
Finding Middle Ground
Given that CAFOs are so polarizing, it is unlikely that FRSA will be adopted. That said, there are other paths towards increased regulation that might be more plausible. For example, the Agriculture Resilience Act offers an incentive-based approach to sustainable farming. This bill focuses on achieving net-zero emissions from the agricultural sector through various practices, including promoting soil health, protecting existing farmland, and supporting pasture-based livestock systems. By offering incentives and support for more sustainable practices, the bill indirectly addresses environmental concerns related to CAFOs. For a more direct approach, policymakers could attempt to reduce financial support for CAFOs. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a conservation program that funds farmers who use agriculturally sustainable practices. Reports show that a significant portion of EQIP funds are going towards CAFOs despite them being antithetical to the cause. If legislators were to propose a bill that excludes CAFOs from EQIP, that could slow down their impact and give smaller farms a greater opportunity for financial viability. While this area of agricultural policy is difficult to navigate, nuanced approaches that consider the multifaceted impacts of CAFOs might provide an opportunity for change.
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.
