Today, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) compose most industrial-scale animal farms. (1)  These farms often house thousands of animals in close quarters with minimal safety and sanitary protections. (2)  The waste created by the animals who live in CAFOs can contain heavy metals, pathogens, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. (3) One way of managing this waste is to spray the waste over fields. (4) Although this practice can mitigate the harm CAFO waste has on the soil, the same procedure creates a myriad of health and justice issues. 

 

Spraying this waste creates plumes of foul-smelling, potentially toxic waste to permeate into the area’s homes, water sources, and soil. (5) These plumes have been linked to respiratory ailments, mucosal irritation, and decreased quality of life. (6) Additionally, these issues often disproportionately affect low-income, minority populations. (7) 

 

One example of this is North Carolina. (8) Here, most CAFOs are in the state’s eastern region, an area predominantly occupied by people of color. (9) The local government determines the location of CAFOs via a permitting process. (10)  Placing CAFOs in locations that disproportionately affect people of color is likely intentional. CAFOs were in this region because the government and industry followed the “path of least resistance.” (11) In short, the local government of North Carolina chose to place the CAFOs here because people of color and those in poverty are often the least likely population to be able to resist. (12)

 

North Carolina was wrong. In a recent Supreme Court case, McKiver v Murphy-Brown, residents who were being disproportionately affected brought a nuisance case against select CAFOs. (13) A nuisance exists when an individual’s actions threaten another enjoyment of their property and or the peace of an area through repeated acts. (14) Here, the residents here used NC’s nuisance laws to seek relief from CAFOs’ odors, pests, and noises. (15)  Ultimately the court held in favor of the residents and ordered the CAFO to pay $75,000 in compensatory damages to each plaintiff and $5 million in punitive damages. (16) Although this outcome did little to remedy the harm the CAFO is causing, the case opened the door to holding CAFOs accountable. (17) 

 

One major obstacle to bringing suits against CAFOs is Right to Farm Laws. Right to farm laws generally grants statutory protection against nuisance suits to CAFOs. (18) In Mckiver, the Right to Farm law was inapplicable because the nuisance had begun before the law’s passage, and the Court held the law did not apply retroactively. (19) Because of these laws, the environmental harms are increasingly being externalized to the U.S. taxpayer—specifically in rural neighborhoods. (20) The arrival of CAFOs in rural communities is consistently impacting the animals, environment, local economies, and even property values of low-income minority regions. (21)  

 

There is, however, hope. In North Carolina, two grass-root movements are challenging NC’s Fight to Farm Law: NC Environmental Justice Network (NCEJN) and Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help (REACH). (22) These organizations are working on a state level to challenge the constitutionality of Right to Farm Laws. (23) These organizations are working with the Senators and Representatives to introduce the Farm Systems Reform Act on a federal level. (24)

 

The Farm Systems Reform Act would set aside $100 billion to help industrial animal farmers voluntarily phase out CAFOs by 2040. (25) The bill has strong grassroots support for national-scale action against CAFOs. (26) If this bill passes, cases like McKiver might become less an exception and more of a norm. Fighting CAFOs’ environmental and social impacts on local communities is essential for building a more just world.