A lack of consistent and transparent regulations governing concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) is underscored by a report released today by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP) and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The report is entitled Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: A Survey of State Policies.
The survey is just one aspect of PCIFAP’s 2½-year study of the effects of industrial farm animal production on public health, the environment, rural communities, and animal welfare. Because of its familiarity with state regulatory issues, the Commission asked NCSL to conduct a 50 state survey of the appropriate state regulatory agencies in hopes of gaining a better understanding of the regulations already on the books, as well as whether the states have the resources available to implement those mandates.
“State and local governments have developed a patchwork of regulations typically using federal regulations as a basic guideline that can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That may result in imbalanced and ineffective enforcement,” said John Carlin, Commission chairman and former Kansas Governor.
The survey highlights the patchwork of regulation from state to state, and in many cases, a complete lack of regulation in areas that are essential to protecting public health and the environment. While many states do have regulations beyond federal requirements, it is clear that the regulation has not caught up with the CAFO model of food animal production. Kentucky, for example, is contemplating whether or not to even continue regulating CAFOs. And other states, like New Mexico, have limited policies on animal feeding operations and rely on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate CAFOs in their states. What is actually being done to regulate CAFOs within the EPA delegated states is obscure. South Dakota refused to respond to the survey and Mississippi responded only minimally. It should be noted that all information requested from state agencies is supposed to be available to the public.
The survey also revealed that several states have made strides in their attempt to mitigate the potential threats posed by CAFOs. Oregon, for example, has gone beyond regulating just those facilities that fit the federal definition of a CAFO, and thus regulates more than double the number of animal feeding operations that federal law requires. California, a state that faces ongoing water quality issues, appears to be working diligently to curb any runoff from CAFOs into water sources. While this survey showed that some states appear to be setting comparably robust examples of CAFO regulations, the survey did not address the actual enforcement of their respective policies.
