Sound science is not just a talking point for pork producers; it is the foundation of responsible environmental management and the basis for the stewardship decisions they make every day.
For generations, science-based practices have protected our natural resources. It’s helped the industry cut its environmental footprint by 8% while using 75% less land, 25% less water and 7% less energy over the past 50-plus years.
Unfortunately, we have entered a time when science and data are often questioned, distorted or ignored. The legal debate over agriculture’s impact on water quality is a clear example of this trend.
In recent years, well-funded activist groups and tort lawyers have begun alleging a connection between the agronomic use of nitrogen and an increased cancer risk to the public. This strategy is designed to trigger negative public sentiment and sway courtroom juries toward favorable rulings that could spell drastic changes in policy for production agriculture.
Nitrogen is what allows civilization to feed itself. Take it away, or regulate it into oblivion, and you eliminate the ability to produce food.
The net for this crusade has been cast far and wide:
- Livestock farmers continue to face new activist-led legal challenges over state Clean Water Act permits for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
- A major federal lawsuit recently filed against a Vermont dairy puts at risk the broad protections for farming that Congress created under the Clean Water Act’s agricultural stormwater exemption, raising the risk significantly for farmers across the country.
- Last month, activists once again filed a federal lawsuit over nitrate levels in several Iowa rivers, seeking more stringent regulations.
- In Oregon, a nationally prominent law firm has filed a major lawsuit against agricultural producers and processors, as well as an Amazon data center, alleging the cumulative effects of these activities in the local area are causing a range of serious diseases, including cancer.
The strategy continues to evolve beyond targeting specific actions for litigation. Activists filed a federal lawsuit against EPA for approving Montana’s shift from numeric limits for nutrient pollution in rivers and streams to narrative criteria. The latter is much harder for plaintiffs to litigate, which is exactly why they are fighting it. In Minnesota, activists have taken state agencies to court over nitrate contamination, while a statewide CAFO permit rewrite is underway.
The Power of a Unified Voice
Understanding this organized headwind is essential. There is strength in numbers, as we recently proved in a Clean Water Act case in Ohio. The National Pork Producers Council, American Farm Bureau Federation and several Ohio state agricultural groups, including the Ohio Pork Council, secured a significant victory, allowing us to intervene as full parties in a fight for the right of Ohio farmers’ continued use and access to manure and other essential agricultural nutrients.
At the National Pork Producers Council, we remind producers that more unites the pork industry than divides it. The same is true across agriculture. With that motivation and science on our side, a united agriculture industry can win this battle for the foundation of civilization.
Michael Formica is the chief legal strategist for the National Pork Producers Council.
