Right to Farm or Right to Monopolize? How Litigation Shields Accelerate Agricultural Consolidation and Environmental Degradation

By Grace Cunningham

            For decades, pharmaceutical and biotechnology company Bayer (formerly Monsanto) has insisted that its Roundup herbicide was safe to control weeds, despite one of its active ingredients being linked to cancer and shown to be carcinogenic to humans.[1]Across the country, veterans exposed to cancer-causing chemicals in contaminated water at Camp Lejeune are just now beginning to seek justice.[2] And in hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), Abbot Laboratories, a global healthcare company,  pushed baby formula out to the most vulnerable population despite its links to necrotizing enterocolitis––a serious and often fatal disease.[3]

These high-profile cases demonstrate that when corporate interests endanger public health and the environment, the legal system is often the only path to accountability and justice. But what happens when that path is blocked? For rural communities, Right-to-Farm laws (RTFLs) are doing just that. These laws have shielded corporate-owned mega-farms from lawsuits and have allowed agriculture consolidation to accelerate, leaving rural communities and traditional farms to bear the environmental, health, and economic costs.[4]

Developed in the 1970s and 1980s, RTFLs were the response to a sprawling suburbia encroaching on farmland.[5] As residential development expanded into agricultural areas, long-established farms increasingly faced nuisance lawsuits – claims that ordinary farming activity unreasonably interfered with neighboring properties. RTFLs were designed to limit these suits and protect farmers from liability while adhering to standard agricultural practices.[6]

Overtime, lobbying efforts from large agribusiness have expanded the scope of Right-to-farm laws to coincide with the market consolidation and growth of industrial agriculture.[7] State legislators expanded what “normal” practice means to cover these industrial-scale activities.[8] Legislators also redefined phrases such as “significant change” to exclude the expansion of size or the conversion of a small farm into a Concentrated Animal Feed Operation (CAFO).[9] These Right-to-Farm laws were deliberately re-drawn to fit the new wave of industrialized agriculture, all while excluding traditional farms.[10]

The effect of these changes has been profound. As consolidation increased, a small handful of corporations now control the vast majority of livestock markets, leaving independent farmers with little to no bargaining power.[11] Communities near these factory farms face declining property values due to odor, water contamination, and public health risks tied to poor air quality.[12] While RTFLs were meant to help rural communities, they now are used to block rural residents from accessing justice.

Many state RTFL protections require agriculture operations to be of a commercial scale or meet acreage requirements.[13] Notably, there are currently no RTFLs that are specifically focused on protecting traditional and family farmers. In 1982, Minnesota was the only state to define “family farm,” then subsequently struck down this provision.[14]

Going back to the original intent of these RTFLs, to protect farmers and farmland from urban takeover, it is clear that the laws were designed with good intentions.[15] However, over time, these laws have been exploited to serve the interests of factory farms and have accelerated the path to consolidation of the agricultural industry. Consequently, this has left traditional farms and rural communities vulnerable to the unregulated factories put up next door.[16]

Closing loopholes that have allowed factory farms to escape litigation is necessary to hold industrial agriculture accountable to the communities that they pollute. At the same time, RTFLs should continue to protect independent family farmers while preserving the original purpose of these laws. This would allow traditional farmers to have a better chance at competing in the marketplace and could revitalize rural economies.

The benefits extend far beyond economics. Protecting traditional farms while limiting the expansion of industrial-scale factories would have significant environmental benefits. Factory farms are notorious for their contribution to local pollution and worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.[17] By protecting traditional farmers, who are far better stewards of the land, we can reduce the environmental harms of modern-day agriculture.

Just as lawsuits against Bayer, the federal government, and Abbott have been critical in exposing the hidden costs of unsafe practices and products, litigation remains an essential tool for holding corporations accountable. When RTFLs are manipulated to block access to the courts, rural communities lose the same chance at justice that cancer patients, veterans, and families in NICUs have fought to secure. By restoring RTFLs to their original purpose of protecting traditional farmers, we can use the legal system to work as a safeguard for public health, the environment, and the future of farming.

[1] ConsumerSafety, Roundup Cancer Lawsuit: 2020 Updates & Settlements (last updated Sept. 23, 2024), https://www.consumersafety.org/product-lawsuits/roundup/.

[2] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Health Issues (last updated July 28, 2025), https://www.va.gov/disability/eligibility/hazardous-materials-exposure/camp-lejeune-water-contamination/.

[3] International Baby Food Action Network, Abbott Must Pay $495M in Infant Formula Trial for Hiding Risks (Aug. 12, 2024), https://www.ibfan.org/abbott-must-pay-495m-in-infant-formula-trial-for-hiding-risks/.

[4] Loka Ashwood et al., How “Right-to-Farm” Laws Hurt Farmers, Disenfranchise Voters, and Empower Corporations, Barn Raising Media (Jan. 22, 2024), https://barnraisingmedia.com/right-to-farm-laws-hurt-farmers-disenfranchise-voters-empower-corporations/.

[5] Terence J. Centner, Governments and Unconstitutional Takings: When Do Right-To-Farm Laws Go Too Far? 33 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 87, 88 (2006).

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 90.

[8] Danielle Diamond et al., Agricultural Exceptionalism, Environmental Injustice, and U.S. Right-to-Farm Laws, 52 Env’t. L. Rep. 10727 (2022).

[9] Ashwood et al., How “Right-to-Farm” Laws Hurt Farmers, Barn Raising Media (Jan. 22, 2024).

[10] Neil D. Hamilton, Right-to-Farm Laws Reconsidered: Ten Reasons Why Legislative Efforts to Resolve Agricultural Nuisances May Be Ineffective, 3 Drake J. Agri. L. 103, 112 (1998).

[11] Mary Hendrickson, et al., The Food System: Concentration and Its Impacts 1 (2020) https://farmaction.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Hendrickson-et-al.-2020.-Concentration-and-Its-Impacts-FINAL.pdf.

[12] Id. at 18.

[13] See, e.g., Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 7, §152(5) (2025); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-4402 (2024); Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-102.

[14] Ashwood et al., supra note 9.

[15] Centner, supra note 5, at 88,

[16] Don E. Albrecht, The Industrial Transformation of Farm Communities: Implications for Family Structure and Socioeconomic Conditions, 63 Rural Sociology 51 (1998).

[17] Karuppan Sakadevan & Minh Long Nguyen, Livestock Production and Its Impact on Nutrient Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 141 Sci.s in Agronomy 147, 155 (2017).