Bill Overview
Title: Reducing Farm Input Costs and Barriers to Domestic Production Act
Description: This bill addresses various provisions related to the regulation of domestic agricultural products, including by requiring the Department of Agriculture to publish criteria for considering requests from meat and poultry establishments to operate at line speeds in excess of the current regulatory limitations. The bill also nullifies the final rule issued by the Council on Environmental Quality on April 20, 2022, that reinstated various National Environmental Policy Act regulatory provisions.
Sponsors: Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]
Target Audience
Population: individuals globally involved in or affected by agricultural production and environmental policy changes
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The legislation directly impacts domestic agricultural producers, specifically those in the meat and poultry industries, as it includes provisions for line speed regulation changes.
- Farmers and agricultural workers will be affected by any changes in environmental regulations and production operations.
- Consumers may also be indirectly affected by changes in production processes, potentially impacting food prices or safety.
- The nullification of NEPA provisions could impact all communities depending on the degree of environmental and regulatory changes adopted as a result of decreased oversight.
- Large agribusiness companies may benefit from relaxed regulations on line speeds and reduced environmental policy restrictions.
Reasoning
- The simulation includes a range of individuals, from those directly involved in agricultural enterprises to consumers indirectly affected by potential changes in food prices or quality due to the policy.
- Consideration is given to the large agribusiness sector, which may see cost reductions and efficiency gains with increased line speeds, and the communities affected by reduced environmental oversight.
- The policy budget constraints necessitate focusing on stakeholders directly involved or affected by changes in agricultural regulations and environmental policies.
- Individuals in the agricultural workforce, particularly those in meat and poultry processing industries, are most directly impacted and thus feature prominently in the simulated interviews.
- Consumer perspectives include urban and rural residents to reflect the potential for varied impacts depending on local reliance on agricultural sectors, differences in food pricing, and access.
- Community impacts are acknowledged, with an emphasis on possible changes to local environments due to reduced NEPA regulations.
- The policy's anticipated broader market and environmental impacts are taken into account, with potential long-term effects reflected in Cantril Wellbeing Scores over 20 years.
Simulated Interviews
Poultry farm owner (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The possibility of increased line speeds could significantly improve my farm's productivity.
- I'm worried about the environmental impact and how that might affect my community long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Meat processing plant worker (North Carolina)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased line speeds might mean more hours and potentially more accidents at work.
- Job security could improve if costs for owners go down, which might mean more stability for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental lawyer (California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rolling back environmental protections is a step backwards for community health and sustainability.
- While the policy could help reduce costs for some, the long-term environmental costs need to be considered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Agricultural policy analyst (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy changes like this can provide great benefits in productivity but need careful monitoring.
- Potential environmental implications might overshadow short-term economic gains if not managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in barriers is generally a good thing for farmers like I used to be.
- I worry how changing regulations might affect the next generation of farmers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Supermarket manager (Illinois)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy reduces input costs, we might see lower prices for consumers.
- There could be concerns around food safety if processing speeds increase too much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Food safety advocate (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased line speeds could compromise food safety, which is concerning.
- Policy might help businesses but at what consumer cost?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Agricultural student (Georgia)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm learning that balancing productivity and the environment is key.
- This policy seems to focus more on immediate economic benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Organic farmer (Kansas)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reduced regulations may make it harder for organic farmers to compete.
- I'm concerned about maintaining sustainability in farming practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Environmental scientist (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rollback of environmental protections is concerning for ecosystem health.
- The policy might offer economic benefits but we need to consider the environmental costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Key Considerations
- Balancing increased production efficiency with potential environmental costs is crucial to ensure long-term sustainability.
- Close monitoring of meat and poultry safety with increased line speeds is essential to avoid potential public health risks.
- Impact of deregulating environmental protections must be carefully evaluated due to possible long-term ecological and community effects.