Abstract
In the United States, industrial animal factories called “CAFOs” (concentrated animal feeding operations) raise most land-based food animals, reducing their own production costs by intensively confining farm animals. However, they do so at the expense of the animals, who suffer horrific institutionalized abuses through intensive confinement, as well as the public, which endures public health endangerment and environmental degradation from CAFOs’ air and water pollution. Federal environmental laws potentially govern the industry’s pollution, but these laws have been largely ineffective at reining in CAFO environmental harms. State and federal laws have also failed to address CAFO animal abuses. Further, the CAFO industry has successfully promoted state laws that limit the public’s ability to document and communicate CAFO threats to public health, the environment, and animal welfare. However, some hope remains: citizen groups diligently and creatively use legal challenges and legislative advocacy to address the worst CAFO practices, and the American public is increasingly alarmed by CAFOs’ lax oversight and supportive of reforms in regulating this industry.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 31.
- 3.
See generally Rollin (2010), pp. 6–14 (discussing the rise of industrialized animal agriculture).
- 4.
Id.
- 5.
Humane Soc’y U.S. (2014).
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (2015).
- 9.
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office (2008), p. 1.
- 10.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 33.
- 11.
Id., p. 11.
- 12.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 65,431, 65,434 (Oct. 21, 2011).
- 13.
Id.
- 14.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 6.
- 15.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), 68 Fed. Reg. 7176, 7180 (Feb. 12, 2003).
- 16.
Id.
- 17.
- 18.
68 Fed. Reg. at 7180.
- 19.
- 20.
76 Fed. Reg. at 65,433–34.
- 21.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 66 Fed. Reg. 2960, 2976–79 (Jan. 12, 2001).
- 22.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 23.
- 23.
68 Fed. Reg. at 7181; Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 25.
- 24.
68 Fed. Reg. at 7181.
- 25.
Id.
- 26.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 27.
- 27.
CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste at Farms, 73 Fed. Reg. 76,948, 76,950 (Dec. 18, 2008).
- 28.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 16; U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Animal Waste: What’s the Problem?
- 29.
- 30.
Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms.
- 31.
Doorn et al. (2002), p. 1.
- 32.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 25.
- 33.
Copeland (2010), pp. 21–22.
- 34.
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (2012), pp. 2–13.
- 35.
Wolfson and Sullivan (2004), p. 207.
- 36.
Id.
- 37.
33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2012).
- 38.
Id. §§ 1311(a), 1342. NPDES permits are issued either by EPA, the federal agency tasked with administering the CWA, or by states that participate in a federally approved permitting system. Id. § 1342.
- 39.
Id. § 1251(a)(1). For example, NPDES permits establish “effluent restrictions” that limit the “quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources” into national waters. 40 C.F.R. § 401.11(i).
- 40.
Waterkeeper v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 399 F.3d 486, 492 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal citation marks omitted).
- 41.
33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
- 42.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 65,431, 65,447 (Oct. 21, 2011).
- 43.
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (2015).
- 44.
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and Small CAFOs.
- 45.
Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the Waterkeeper Decision, 73 Fed. Reg. 70, 418 (Nov. 20, 2008); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), 68 Fed. Reg. 7176, 7266 (Feb. 12, 2003).
- 46.
Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 635 F.3d 738, 744–45 (5th Cir. 2011); Waterkeeper, 399 F.3d at 504.
- 47.
42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1) (2012).
- 48.
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office (2008), pp. 2–3.
- 49.
42 U.S.C. § 7409 (National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards).
- 50.
Id. § 7408(a)(1)(A).
- 51.
Envtl. Integrity Project, Petition for the Regulation of Ammonia as a Criteria Pollutant Under Clean Air Act Sections 108 and 109 (Apr. 2011).
- 52.
Envtl. Integrity Project v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 15-cv-139, Compl. (D.D.C. Jan 28, 2015).
- 53.
Zook v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 1:13-cv-01315-RJL, Compl. (D.D.C. Aug 29, 2013).
- 54.
Zook v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 1:13-cv-01315-RJL, Order (D.D.C. June 30, 2014); Zook v. McCarthy, No. 1:13-cv-01315-RJL, Notice of Appeal (D.D.C. July 29, 2014).
- 55.
42 U.S.C. §§ 7475(a)(1), 7479(1), 7602(j) (New Source Review Program).
- 56.
Id. § 7661c (CAA permits for major stationary sources).
- 57.
Id. §§ 7401–7515, 7661–7661f.
- 58.
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, No. 1:05-CV-00707 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. C & R Vanderham Dairy, No. 1:05-CV-01593 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
- 59.
Zook v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 1:13-cv-01315-RJL, Order (D.D.C. June 30, 2014); Zook v. McCarthy, No. 1:13-cv-01315-RJL, Notice of Appeal (D.D.C. July 29, 2014).
- 60.
See generally 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b), (d), (f) (New Source Performance Standard Program).
- 61.
Humane Soc’y U.S., Petition to List Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Under Clean Air Act Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, and to Promulgate Standards of Performance Under Clean Air Act Sections 111(b)(1)(B) and 111(d) (Sept 21, 2009).
- 62.
Humane Soc’y U.S. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 15-cv-0141, Compl. (D.D.C. Jan 28, 2015).
- 63.
42 U.S.C. § 7412 (Hazardous Air Pollutants).
- 64.
Letter from Neil J. Carman, Sierra Club, to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Hydrogen Sulfide Needs Hazardous Air Pollutant Listing Under CAA Title III (Mar. 30, 2009).
- 65.
Animal Feeding Operations Consent Agreement and Final Order, 70 Fed. Reg. 4958, 4958 (Jan. 31, 2005).
- 66.
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 494 F.3d 1027, 1028–37 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
- 67.
42 U.S.C. § 6902(b) (2012).
- 68.
Id. § 6903(27).
- 69.
Id. § 6945(a).
- 70.
See Community Ass’n for Restoration of the Env’t, Inc. (CARE) v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Order re: Cross Mots. Summary Judgment, 81–82 (E.D. Wash. Jan 14, 2015) (discussing and outlining these RCRA regulations).
- 71.
42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B).
- 72.
CARE v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Compl. 2–3 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2013).
- 73.
42 U.S.C. § 9603(a) (2012); 40 C.F.R. § 302.6(a).
- 74.
42 U.S.C. § 9601(8), (22).
- 75.
40 C.F.R. § 302.4.
- 76.
42 U.S.C. §§ 11001(c), 11004(b)(1) (2012); 40 C.F.R. § 355.40.
- 77.
42 U.S.C. § 1104(b)(2).
- 78.
CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste at Farms, 73 Fed. Reg. 76,948, 76,950 (Dec. 18, 2008).
- 79.
Animal Feeding Operations Consent Agreement and Final Order, 70 Fed. Reg. 4958, 4958 (Jan. 31, 2005).
- 80.
73 Fed. Reg. at 76,950.
- 81.
Id.; 40 C.F.R. § 355.31(g).
- 82.
73 Fed. Reg. at 76,953.
- 83.
Waterkeeper Alliance v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 09-1017, Petition for Review (D.D.C. Jan. 15, 2009).
- 84.
Waterkeeper Alliance v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 09-1017, Order (D.D.C. Oct. 19, 2010).
- 85.
Waterkeeper Alliance v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 09-1017, Motion to Recall the Mandate or, in the Alternative, Petition for Writ of Mandamus (D.C. Cir. Apr. 15, 2015).
- 86.
7 U.S.C. §§ 2132–2159 (2012).
- 87.
Id. § 2132(g).
- 88.
Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6522 (2012); 7 C.F.R. § 205.238(a)(4) (requiring the “provision of conditions which allow for exercise, freedom of movement, and reduction of stress appropriate to the species” for animals raised under the federal organic program).
- 89.
Wolfson (1999), p. 14.
- 90.
7 U.S.C. § 1902 (2012).
- 91.
Id.
- 92.
Humane Soc’y U.S. (2014).
- 93.
49 U.S.C. § 80502(a) (2012).
- 94.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 38.
- 95.
Wolfson and Sullivan (2004), p. 212.
- 96.
Wolfson (1999), p. 10.
- 97.
Wolfson and Sullivan (2004), pp. 209–12.
- 98.
Humane Soc’y U.S. (2011).
- 99.
Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, 132 S.Ct. 965, 969–70 (2012).
- 100.
Id. at 968.
- 101.
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Lakey, No. 03-13-00094-cv, Memo. Opinion 1–2 (Tex. Ct. App., 3d Dist., Feb. 19, 2014).
- 102.
Id. at 11–12.
- 103.
Fla. Const. art. 10, § 21.
- 104.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-2910.07–13-2910.08 (Arizona); Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990, 25995–97 (California); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 35-50.5-101–103 (Colorado); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 7, § 4020 (Maine); Mich. Rev. Stat. § 287.746 (Michigan); Or. Rev. Stat. § 600.150 (Oregon); R.I. Rev. Stat. chap. 4-1.1 (Rhode Island).
- 105.
Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990, 25995–97 (California); Mich. Rev. Stat. § 287.746 (Michigan).
- 106.
E.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. § 47-1827; N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-21.1-02; Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112.
- 107.
E.g., Iowa Code § 717A.3A; Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112.
- 108.
E.g., Missouri Rev. Code § 578.013.1 (requiring anyone who witness animal cruelty to report it to law enforcement within 24 h).
- 109.
See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112 (providing for a fine of up to $2500 and up to a year in jail).
- 110.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 47-1827 (Kansas); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-21.1-02 (North Dakota); Mont. Code Ann. § 81-30-103 (Montana).
- 111.
Idaho Rev. Stat. § 18-7042 (Idaho); Iowa Code § 717A.3A (Iowa); Missouri Rev. Code § 578.013.1 (Missouri); Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112 (Utah).
- 112.
See Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2015) (outlining the introduction of state ag gag laws).
- 113.
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Otter, No. 1:14-cv-104, Compl. (D. Idaho Mar. 17, 2014); Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Herbert, No. 2:13-CV-00679-RJS, Compl. (D. Utah July 22, 2013).
- 114.
Ala. Code § 6-5-620 et seq. (Alabama); Ariz Rev. Stat. § 3-113 (Arizona); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 35-31-101 (Colorado); Fla. Stat. § 865.065 (Florida); Ga. Code § 2-16-1 et seq. (Georgia); Idaho Code § 6-2003(4) (Idaho); La. Stat. § 3:4501 et seq. (Louisiana); Miss. Code Ann. § 69-1-251 (Mississippi); N.D. Cent. Code § 32-44-01 et seq. (North Dakota); Ohio Code § 2307.81 (Ohio); Okla. Stat. § 5-100 et seq. (Oklahoma); S.D. Codified Laws § 20-10A-1 et seq. (South Dakota); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 96.001 et seq. (Texas).
- 115.
Id.
- 116.
Ala. Code § 6-5-623.
- 117.
See Ala. Code § 6-5-621(1) (a statement is “deemed to be false if it is not based on reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data.”); Ga. Code Ann. § 2-16-2(1) (similar); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4502(1) (similar).
- 118.
- 119.
See generally Nomai (1999).
- 120.
See, e.g., Tex. Beef Grp. v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 2000); Action for Clean Env’t v. Georgia, 457 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
- 121.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. 5.
- 122.
Id., pp. 5–6, 42.
- 123.
Id., p. 6.
- 124.
Farmers for Obama, Ensuring Economic Opportunity for Family Farmers.
- 125.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice (2012), p. 16.
- 126.
See id., pp. 17–19 (describing Justice Department challenges to livestock industry acquisitions on antitrust grounds).
- 127.
33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
- 128.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), 68 Fed. Reg. 7176, 7266 (Feb. 12, 2003).
- 129.
Id. at 7176.
- 130.
Id.
- 131.
Id.
- 132.
Id. at 7182.
- 133.
Id. at 7201.
- 134.
Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005).
- 135.
Id. at 504.
- 136.
Id. at 504–05 (discussing CWA requirements applicable to “the discharge of any pollutant”).
- 137.
Id. at 505–06, 506 n. 22.
- 138.
Id. at 505 (emphasis in original).
- 139.
Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the Waterkeeper Decision, 73 Fed. Reg. 70,418, 70,423 (Nov. 20, 2008).
- 140.
Id.
- 141.
Id. at 70,423–24.
- 142.
Id. at 70,424.
- 143.
Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 635 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2011).
- 144.
Id. at 749.
- 145.
Id. at 750.
- 146.
Id. at 751.
- 147.
Id. at 751–52.
- 148.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Removal of Vacated Elements in Response to 2011 Court Decision, 77 Fed. Reg. 44494 (July 30, 2012).
- 149.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 65,431, 65,435 (Oct. 21, 2011) (explaining the settlement agreement).
- 150.
Id.
- 151.
Id.
- 152.
Id. at 65,431. EPA clarified that its reporting rule did not contravene Waterkeeper and NPPC v. EPA because it imposed only information disclosure, not permitting requirements. Id.
- 153.
Id. at 65,435.
- 154.
Id. at 65,436.
- 155.
Id. at 65,435.
- 156.
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office (2008), p. 48.
- 157.
Id. at 4.
- 158.
Id. at 48.
- 159.
76 Fed. Reg. at 65,435.
- 160.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 42,679 (July 20, 2012) (withdrawing 2011 proposed CAFO reporting rule).
- 161.
Id. at 42,681.
- 162.
Envtl. Integrity Project v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No.: 1:13-cv-1306, Compl. 2 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2013).
- 163.
Community Ass’n for Restoration of the Env’t, Inc. (CARE) v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Compl. 2 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2013).
- 164.
Id. at 15, 86.
- 165.
Id. at 109.
- 166.
Id. at 4–5.
- 167.
Id. at 15, 22, 30.
- 168.
Id. at 5.
- 169.
Id. at 18.
- 170.
Id. at 31.
- 171.
Id. at 78–79.
- 172.
42 U.S.C. § 6903(27).
- 173.
40 C.F.R. § 257.1(c)(1).
- 174.
CARE v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Order re: Cross Mots. Summary Judgment, 85–86 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 14, 2015) (explaining this exemption for useful fertilizer).
- 175.
42 U.S.C. § 6945(a).
- 176.
See CARE v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Order re: Cross Mots. Summary Judgment 81–82 (discussing and outlining these RCRA regulations).
- 177.
42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B); see CARE v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Order re: Cross Mots. Summary Judgment at 80 (describing what plaintiffs must establish to show liability under this provision).
- 178.
CARE v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Order re: Cross Mots. Summary Judgment at 109.
- 179.
Id. at 88.
- 180.
Id. at 93.
- 181.
Id. at 95.
- 182.
Id. at 97, 101–02.
- 183.
Id. at 104–05.
- 184.
CARE v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Compl. 2–3 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2013); see 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a) (establishing CERCLA reporting requirement); 42 U.S.C. § 11004 (establishing EPCRA reporting requirement).
- 185.
42 U.S.C. § 9603(a); 40 C.F.R. § 302.6(a).
- 186.
40 C.F.R. § 302.4.
- 187.
42 U.S.C. §§ 11001(c), 11004(b)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 355.40; 40 C.F.R. pt. 355, app. A.
- 188.
CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste at Farms, 73 Fed. Reg. 76,948, 76,950 (Dec. 18, 2008).
- 189.
Id. at 76,953.
- 190.
See id. at 76,952 (limiting the EPCRA exemption to CAFOs containing fewer than 700 mature dairy cows); CARE v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Order re: Cross Mots. Summary Judgment at 4 (stating that Cow Palace has more than 7372 milking cows).
- 191.
CARE v. Cow Palace, LLC, No. CV-13-3016-TOR, Compl. at 25–26.
- 192.
Id. at 26–27.
- 193.
Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990–25994.
- 194.
Id. § 25990 (“[A] person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from: (a) [l]ying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and (b) [t]urning around freely.”).
- 195.
Id. §§ 25990, 25995–97.
- 196.
Humane Soc’y U.S. (2012).
- 197.
Blume (2008).
- 198.
Aliva v. Olivera Egg Ranch, No. 08-1220 (E.D. Cal., filed Oct. 20, 2008); In re The Humane Soc’y U.S., Cal. Regl. Water Quality Control Board (Oct. 7, 2008).
- 199.
Complaint Against the United Egg Producers, Inc., California for SAFE Food, a Coalition of Family Farmers, Veterinarians, and Consumers, No on Proposition 2, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, Cal. Fair Political Pract. Comm’n (Sept. 3, 2008); Complaint Against the United Egg Producers, Inc., California for SAFE Food, a Coalition of Family Farmers, Veterinarians, and Consumers, No on Proposition 2, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, Cal. Fair Pract. Comm’n (Sept. 11, 2008); Complaint Against the United Egg Producers, Inc., California for SAFE Food, a Coalition of Family Farmers, Veterinarians, and Consumers, No on Proposition 2, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, Cal. Fair Pract. Comm’n (Oct 1, 2008).
- 200.
Humane Soc’y U.S. v. Schafer, No. 08-3843, Compl. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008).
- 201.
See, e.g., Wilke (2008).
- 202.
Cramer v. Harris, No. 2:12-cv-03130-JFW- JEM, Order, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015).
- 203.
Id. at *3.
- 204.
State of Missouri v. Harris, No. 2:14-cv-00341-KJM-KJN, Order, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014).
- 205.
Id.
- 206.
Id. at *10.
- 207.
Id.
- 208.
Id. at *15.
- 209.
State of Missouri v. Harris, No. 2:14-cv-00341-KJM-KJN, Notice of Appeal (E.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2014).
- 210.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2008), p. viii.
- 211.
Id., p. 77.
References
Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2015) Ag-gag bills at the state level. https://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/advocacy-center/ag-gag-whistleblower-suppression-legislation/ag-gag-bills-state-level. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
Berry W (1977) The unsettling of America: culture and agriculture. Avalon Books, New York
Blume H (Oct 14, 2008) Footage of mistreated hens released in support of Proposition 2. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/14/local/me-chickens14. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
Copeland C (2010) Air quality issues and animal agriculture: a primer. Research Serv., RL 32948
Doorn MRJ et al. (2002) Review of emissions factors and methodologies to estimate ammonia emissions from animal waste handling. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
Farmers for Obama, Ensuring Economic Opportunity for Family Farmers. http://farmersforobama.org/?p=50. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
Gurian-Sherman D (2008) CAFOs uncovered: the untold costs of confined animal feeding operations. Union of Concerned Scientists
Humane Soc’y U.S. (2010) An HSUS Report: The welfare of animals in the pig industry
Humane Soc’y U.S. (Nov. 9, 2011) High court considering case on sick, injured livestock law. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/blog/2011/11/supreme_court_downers_11092011.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
Humane Soc’y U.S. (Oct. 9, 2012) Another Hallmark/Westland investigation milestone. http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2012/10/hallmark-investigation-video.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
Humane Soc’y U.S. (Sept 15, 2014) Farm animal statistics: slaughter totals. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats_slaughter_totals.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
Jones EG (2000–2001) Forbidden fruit: talking about pesticides and food safety in the era of agricultural product disparagement laws. Brook Law Rev 66:823
Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Facts about pollution from livestock farms. http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
Nomai AJ (1999), Food disparagement laws: a threat to us all. Free Heretic Pubs
Pew Charitable Trusts & Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch. Pub. Health (2008) Putting meat on the table: industrial farm animal production in America: A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production
Rollin B (2010) Farm factories. In: Imhoff D (ed) The CAFO reader: the tragedy of industrial animal factories. University of California Press, Berkeley
Semple M (1996) Veggie libel meets free speech: a constitutional analysis of agricultural disparagement law. VA Environ Law J 15:403
U.S. Dep’t of Justice (2012) Competition and agriculture: voices from the workshops on agriculture and antitrust enforcement in our 21st century economy and thoughts on the way forward
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (2002) State compendium: programs and regulatory activities related to animal feeding operations
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (2012) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2010
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (2014) Animal feeding operations. http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/anafoidx.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (2015) What is a CAFO?. http://www.epa.gov/region07/water/cafo/. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Animal waste: what’s the problem? http://www.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Regulatory definitions of large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and small CAFOs. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sector_table.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office (2008) Concentrated animal feeding operations: EPA needs more information and a clearly defined strategy to protect air and water quality from pollutants of concern
Wasserman HM (2000) Two degrees of speech protection: free speech through the prism of agricultural disparagement laws. Wm Mary Bill Rights J 8:323
Wilke JR (Sept 23, 2008) Federal prosecutors probe food-price collusion. Wall St. J. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122213370781365931.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Wolfson DJ (1999) Beyond the law: agribusiness and the systemic abuse of animals raised for food or food production. Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen
Wolfson DJ, Sullivan M (2004) Foxes in the hen house—animals, agribusiness, and the law: a modern American Fable. In: Sunstein CR, Nussbaum MC (eds) Animal rights: current debates and new directions
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moses, A., Tomaselli, P. (2017). Industrial Animal Agriculture in the United States: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). In: Steier, G., Patel, K. (eds) International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18002-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18002-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18001-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18002-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)