Watchdog groups say chickens used by Costco are bred to grow so quickly, many of them cannot stand under their own weight, and recent lawsuits against the company have put the spotlight once again on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.

There are more than 3,000 such poultry operations in North Carolina, growing hundreds of millions of chickens a year.

Chris Heaney, associate professor of environmental health at Johns Hopkins University, said breeding cheap chickens comes with a host of negative public health impacts.

"They include concerns around the role of antimicrobial use, promoting antimicrobial resistance, which can be transmitted between animals; and between food, animals and people who live in regions where there is intensive livestock production," Heaney outlined.

Heaney stated the large operations also generate air pollution, which can trigger respiratory problems, nausea, neurological issues, and anxiety and depression in residents living near them.

In a statement to investors, Costco said it has no significant evidence of any adverse impacts to chickens grown in its factory farms, which are mostly located in Nebraska, and emphasized it is "committed to the welfare of animals in its supply chains."

Heaney pointed out consumers are not typically aware of all the costs to the air, water, and soil, which come with purchasing a rotisserie chicken priced at less than $5.

"The open question is the degree to which the consumer, in terms of purchasing meats and the price that they pay, is actually reflecting a lot of those adverse impacts," Heaney noted.

Large operations are also vulnerable to climate impacts. One analysis by the Environmental Working Group and the Waterkeeper Alliance found in 2016, when hurricane Matthew flooded waste lagoons and livestock confinement barns, nearby waterways became contaminated with animal urine and feces, which contains pathogens such as E.coli, hormones, antibiotics and industrial chemicals known to cause illness in humans.

The current Farm Bill expires Sept. 30 and with a looming government shutdown, reauthorization does not appear imminent.

Wisconsin farm groups say most of the effects would not be felt right away, but there is still uncertainty in the air. The Farm Bill, which is updated every five years, covers a range of agriculture policies like crop insurance, and funds government food assistance.

Michelle Ramirez-White, policy coordinator for the Wisconsin Farmers Union, said December and January are the more concerning deadlines if action does not materialize. In the meantime, she said they will keep fighting for provisions to establish market fairness within agriculture.

"We just see these issues of competition needing to be addressed in a more holistic and composite way," Ramirez-White contended.

As for timelines, she warned dairy prices would see an upheaval if a new bill is not approved by the end of this year. Ag experts said it would be a major blow to consumers and exports. The Farm Bill has generally enjoyed bipartisan support, but some GOP House members are pushing hard for spending cuts, complicating spending talks, including for agriculture.

Margaret Krome, policy program director at the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said they have a mixed outlook on the state of the Farm Bill. She noted thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, some key conservation programs are reauthorized for several years. Other programs, such as providing grants to farmers to bring their products to market, would at least still operate on autopilot.

"They will, maybe not be all able to sign contracts, but they will be able to continue to function up until the end of December," Krome pointed out. "But we are watching to make sure that they get implemented properly."

Krome added the Institute is worried about talks in Congress to essentially boost commodity payouts for a limited group of farmers elsewhere in the country. She warned advancing the proposal would come at the expense of broader conservation funding.

Rural advocates are supporting the Farmland for Farmers Act in Congress. It would restrict the amount of Iowa farmland large corporations can own, and it is in response to foreign and domestic corporations buying up land and then renting it out.

As farmers start to retire, more than 40% of U.S. farmland will change hands in the next decade, but it might not wind up with young Iowans who want to farm.

Hannah Breckbill, co-farmer at Decorah-based Humble Hands Harvest in northeast Iowa, said out-of-state corporations buy the land and rent it to the highest bidder, keeping it out of local hands and driving land prices sky-high.

"Land prices have been going up and up and up," Breckbill observed. "In my career as a farmer -- which is not very long, only about a decade -- I've seen land prices more than double. And we need farmers to be on the ground, owning land."

Breckbill pointed out more than 50% of Iowa's 30 million acres of farmed land is rented and not locally owned. The Farmland for Farmers Act would restrict corporate investment, and supporters hope it is adopted as part of the new Farm Bill, scheduled to be debated this month.

Breckbill also helps overwhelmed young farmers find land in Iowa, and being a young farmer herself, has firsthand experience with navigating the daunting land acquisition process. She believes Iowa's farmland should be making a natural transition into the hands of beginning local farmers.

"We've gotten jobs on farms. We know how to farm. We have the skills. We have the knowledge. We have the capacity. We have the energy," Breckbill emphasized. "We just don't have the capital to be able to access the land."

The National Family Farm Coalition, which supports the Farmland for Farmers Act, released a fact sheet showing the average price of an acre of farmland in the U.S. has climbed to $3,800, the highest it has been since the 1970s. The Act has not yet received official support from Iowa's members of Congress.

The Environmental Protection Agency has upheld Montana farmers' right to repair their own equipment, and says doing so does not violate the Clean Air Act.

Montana farmers and ranchers joined with the National Farmers Union in writing to the EPA to oppose equipment manufacturers and dealers, who claimed farmers shouldn't be working on the emission-control systems on their high-dollar machinery. The farmers union said the dealers cited the Clean Air Act as justification for limiting the right to repair their own gear.

The EPA has sided with the farmers.

Montana Farmers Union President Walter Schweitzer said the last thing a farmer or rancher wants to do is run afoul of the Clean Air Act.

"It's quite frankly the opposite," he said. "What EPA wants and requires is the equipment manufacturers to give the farmers and ranchers, and the equipment owners, the tools so that they can maintain their emissions."

The "right to repair" movement isn't limited to farm machinery. Many states have legislation pending or have taken action on a person's right to have access to the tools they'd need to repair anything from smartphones and wheelchairs to e-tablets and heavy equipment.

Schweitzer added that when it comes to farming in Montana, waiting for an authorized tractor dealer to come to his farm and fix a piece of equipment can mean the difference between harvesting a crop before bad weather hits and losing it.

"Well, that happened to me," he said. "I was haying, had a tractor hooked to my baler, and I had a fuel sensor that was failing, and so it was shutting my tractor down randomly. So, here I am - I've got hay in a windrow ready to bale, rain could wreck it, and I don't have a tractor to bale."

The ruling by the EPA requires dealers to provide necessary software to farmers, allowing them to diagnose and fix their own farm equipment emissions issues. In this case, Schweitzer said, being able to do that would have saved him a $5,000 fuel-sensor repair bill.




get more stories like this via email