Ashwood et al.: Empty Fields, Empty Promises

In Empty Fields, Empty Promises: A State-by-State Guide to Understanding and Transforming the Right to Farm, Loka Ashwood (Sociology, University of Kentucky), Aimee Imlay (Sociology, Mississippi State University), Lindsay Kuehn (Farmers Legal Action Group), Allen Franco (Federal Public Defender), and Danielle Diamond (Harvard Law) use a mixed methods approach to analyze and compare state right-to-farm (RTF) laws in practice across all 50 states.   

The central idea behind RTFs is to protect agricultural land, specifically that of the family farmer, from nuisance lawsuits that might otherwise interfere with agricultural uses of the land.

Empty Fields notes that RTF laws began in the late 1970s. At the time, farmers were increasingly going out of business, commodity prices bottomed out, interest rates on farms rose, and farmer suicide rates hit a record high. RTF statutes were proposed as a solution.  However, this research reveals that, despite early emphasis on the plight of family farmers, smaller scale agriculture, like the sole proprietor farmer, is the least likely to win in RTF cases. Instead, the authors document how RTF laws tend to benefit concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO). Large CAFOS with over 1,000 animal units are the party type most likely to win in court for RTF cases.  

The authors conclude that RTF laws are operating contrary to their purported design. The book includes a discussion of a range of alternative approaches, including greater support for expanded marketing options for small growers, that would better support more marginalized farmers. They also consider RTF repeals or amendments with more specific protections for small and medium-sized farms or greater local control. Finally, they discuss the possibility of state constitutional amendments to further cement protections for things like a right to home or a right to food.

Overall, Empty Fields argues that revisiting and reevaluating RTF laws would allow for the rebuilding of a more democratic agricultural system.