Executive summary

This brief examines the complex debate surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which are integral to modern food production but raise significant environmental, ethical, and health concerns. It provides a historical overview of CAFOs' emergence, explores the arguments from economic and environmental stakeholders, and evaluates the consequences of insufficient regulation. The brief also highlights current policy frameworks, such as the Clean Water Act and proposed amendments, alongside potential strategies to balance economic benefits with environmental and public health protections.

‍

Overview

CAFOs are at the center of intense debate within environmental, ethical, and agricultural policy circles. Proponents of CAFOs argue they are a necessary component of modern food production due to being designed to efficiently meet the growing global demand for dairy, meat, and poultry. This happens through a system where a large number of animals are concentrated in a single facility to optimize various factors such as land use and reduced costs. 

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, a study posted in early February, of 2024 shows that “There are currently 1.7 billion animals living on U.S. factory farms; an increase of 6% since 2017, 47% more than roughly twenty years ago in 2002.” At the time, there were 24 thousand factory farms where 940 billion pounds of waste were produced. Typically, these mass amounts of manure from animals are placed in a lagoon. This has led to ethical and environmental concerns from neighboring communities where health concerns are noted to be a top concern.

Industrial farming has become a dominant model in agriculture, exemplified by the rise of concentrated animal feeding operations over the last 50 years. The CAFO model initially began due to concerns of a rapidly growing population. To reduce costs of various animal product productions and minimize lands, an industrial approach was created to serve larger communities at a higher and quicker rate whilst remaining affordable. This was all due to responding to post-World War II pressures to ensure that the American people had food and economic security. The poultry industry responded to these worries in the late 1940s and not long after in the 70s did swine producers adopt the same methods.

Although there are many debates regarding CAFOs, the benefits are economic, as they make food cheaper for American consumers and enable individual operations to produce two to three times more livestock in comparison to traditional farmers. Continuing the lists of benefits economically, under corporate production agreements, contract growers are ensured that their return per head is consistent whereas that benefit is not afforded to independent hoop house producers who remain at the mercy of market fluctuations. 

‍

Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

Finding the balance between economic efficiency and environmental protection is evident in the CAFO debate. 

At the forefront of the economic perspective, corporate agribusiness provides numerous reasons why their CAFO operations should continue. Their tactics include public campaigns, which aim to convince citizens that CAFOs keep retail prices low, produce the quantities of products necessary for feeding the population, and “label CAFO critics as uninformed or emotional” (Ikerd). Although these arguments seem to be in the public interest, much of CAFO support is motivated by corporations “us[ing] their control of processing and distribution to capture the economic benefits for their shareholders” (Ikerd). Additionally, corporations are active in the CAFO debate, since they have desires to establish monopoly-like control over agribusiness in a certain area, often forcing independent producers out of business and maintaining “market power and profits for agribusiness corporations” (Ikerd). 

On the other hand, environmentalists are outspoken critics of CAFO use, citing pollution and public health as important reasons why CAFOs should be strictly regulated (Dip). Firstly, environmental activists report that “CAFOs contribute over 7% of Greenhouse gas emissions in the US” and the specific greenhouse gas produced by agriculture, methane, is more harmful than carbon dioxide (Dip). Since environmentalists are often concerned with greenhouse gas-caused global warming, this is evidently a pressing issue. Besides climate change as a whole, CAFO opponents cite the health risks as reasons for regulations, as production of particulate matter and emissions reduce air quality (Dip). For residents near CAFOs, higher asthma rates are common (Dip). While CAFOs and air quality are problems, environmentalists are against the high waste production that runs off into surrounding surface water (Baron). If this water is then used for drinking, young children and fetuses can be harmed (Baron).

‍

B. Risks of Indifference

Consistent with the environmental critique of CAFOs, nonregulation will lead to detrimental environmental and public health impacts. Currently, “CAFOs are the leading cause of pollution to surface water bodies and cause dead zones in oceans.” However there are few federal environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act, that apply to CAFOs (Walton and Jaiven). This inadequate regulation contributes to more dead zones, or oxygen-deficient environments that destroy marine life, and “threatens water quality” (Walton and Jaiven). Misregulation of CAFOs can be seen in regard to air pollution as well, as the Clean Air Act does not regulate the 160 gasses emitted by manure, contributing to global warming and poor air quality (Walton and Jaiven). Lastly, the unchecked use of antibiotics, which are used to manage livestock diseases, may result in antibiotic resistance in both animals and humans (Walton and Jaiven). This may result in antibiotics becoming less effective, “enabl[ing] antibiotic-resistant bacteria-related illnesses, including E. coli and Salmonella” (Walton and Jaiven). 

‍

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

Importantly, the balance needs to be found between keeping protein and dairy prices low for consumers and protecting human and environmental health. While corporations have declared CAFO operations to protect low prices, there are serious environmental implications for continuing to rely on CAFOs. Solutions that may balance both arguments can come from consumers, like eating less meat, and government regulation, like passing legislation that more strictly regulates CAFO effects.  

‍

Policy Options

For decades, the implications of CAFOs have been in debate by federal, state, and livestock industry groups. The largest concern with CAFOs, which recent policies have worked to combat, is their pollution-producing nature. A 2008 study found that livestock operations (namely CAFOs) are responsible for over 7% of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—a key contributor to the climate crisis which the government has been working to avert. Government implementation of stricter environmental regulations can address the challenges posed by CAFOs. Challenges that, as explained by the EPA, can “generate significant volumes of animal waste which … can result in environmental and human health risks such as water quality impairment, fish kills, algal blooms, contamination of drinking water sources, and transmission of disease-causing bacteria…” Stricter regulations would aim to reduce these impacts while maintaining the economic benefits of CAFOs.

To tackle water pollution, policymakers could expand on existing laws like the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the CWA, CAFOs are classified as point sources of pollution and are required to obtain permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to discharge waste into surface waters. However, enforcement has been inconsistent, and loopholes allow some CAFOs to avoid permits. Strengthening the CWA by closing these loopholes and mandating regular inspections and reporting could enhance accountability. Additional measures, such as requiring CAFOs to adopt advanced waste management systems like anaerobic digesters, could further limit nutrient runoff into waterways. Anaerobic digesters not only reduce water contamination but, according to the National Institutes of Health, can “produce renewable energy from livestock manure, prevent the release of methane, and reduce air and water pollution, and digested manure can be applied to crops as a fertilizer.”

Air pollution is another concern linked to CAFOs. Despite being a key contributor to national GHG emissions, CAFOs are not directly regulated by federal law such as the Clean Air Act (CAA). Proposals such as the Farm System Reform Act, introduced by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) in 2021, advocate for stricter oversight of CAFO emissions. This act calls for the EPA to include ammonia and methane emissions from large-scale livestock operations under air quality standards. Enacting such provisions would ensure CAFOs comply with emission limits, reducing their contribution to climate change and improving air quality for nearby communities.

Another regulatory strategy involves creating buffer zones between CAFOs and residential or environmentally sensitive areas. Several states have introduced setbacks requiring minimum distances between CAFOs and schools, hospitals, or water sources. For instance, Iowa mandates that CAFOs maintain a 1,250-foot setback from public areas to reduce the risk of pollution and odors affecting residents. Expanding such requirements nationwide could further protect vulnerable populations and ecosystems from CAFO impacts.

Stricter regulations, while environmentally beneficial, can impose significant economic costs on CAFO operators. To address this, policymakers could implement financial incentives to support compliance. Federal programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) already provide funding for farmers to adopt conservation practices, including waste management upgrades. Expanding EQIP to specifically target CAFOs or creating a separate grant program could help operators offset the cost of implementing technologies like advanced waste management systems, and meeting stricter standards.

Enhanced regulation of CAFOs offers significant benefits, including improved water and air quality, reduced GHG emissions, and better protection for low-income and rural communities disproportionately affected by pollution. However, implementation may face resistance from the livestock industry due to concerns about costs and competitiveness. For progress, a balanced approach is essential, combining regulation with support mechanisms such as subsidies, technical assistance, and phased timelines. Legislative measures like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act amendments, and the Farm System Reform Act provide a framework for reducing CAFO impacts while ensuring sustainability and equity.

Conclusions

CAFOs are a cornerstone of industrial agriculture, offering economic advantages by producing large quantities of affordable food. However, their operations pose environmental and public health risks, including greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and air quality concerns. Stakeholders, including corporate agribusinesses, environmentalists, and policymakers, have long debated the implications of CAFOs and the need for stricter regulation. Existing measures like the Clean Water Act and recent legislative proposals demonstrate efforts to address these challenges while balancing economic and environmental priorities. Further regulatory and operational improvements will likely remain central to the evolving discourse on sustainable agriculture.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Anagha Nagesh, Nolan Ezzet and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Policy Department within the Institute.

References

1. S. M. Metev and V. P. Veiko, Laser Assisted Microtechnology, 2nd ed., R. M. Osgood, Jr., Ed.  Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1998.
2. J. Breckling, Ed., The Analysis of Directional Time Series: Applications to Wind Speed and Direction, ser. Lecture Notes in Statistics.  Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1989, vol. 61.
3. S. Zhang, C. Zhu, J. K. O. Sin, and P. K. T. Mok, “A novel ultrathin elevated channel low-temperature poly-Si TFT,” IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. 20, pp. 569–571, Nov. 1999.
4. M. Wegmuller, J. P. von der Weid, P. Oberson, and N. Gisin, “High resolution fiber distributed measurements with coherent OFDR,” in Proc. ECOC’00, 2000, paper 11.3.4, p. 109.