Bill Overview
Title: Transparency in Depopulation Act
Description: This bill requires animal feeding operators who receive federal relief funds and that have performed livestock or poultry depopulation to submit to the Department of Agriculture a report that includes the reason depopulation was performed, the methods used, the intended product of the depopulated animals, and the efficacy of the depopulation.
Sponsors: Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Animal feeding operators involved in livestock or poultry depopulation worldwide
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill impacts animal feeding operators who receive federal relief funds, as they are required to submit reports.
- The operators involved in livestock or poultry depopulation are specifically targeted.
- The reporting requirement will indirectly affect their administrative and operational procedures.
- Transparency might further impact stakeholders involved in animal welfare and food safety.
- The general public's perception of food production processes could be influenced.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts animal feeding operators involved in livestock and poultry depopulation who receive federal relief funds. This demographic, though numerically small compared to the total number of farms, tends to involve operations with significant influence on agricultural practices and related employment.
- The financial burden of compliance with reporting requirements is expected to be a critical factor affecting these operators. However, the transparency could enhance public trust over time, potentially benefying operations through improved consumer perceptions.
- The general public, while not being the direct target of the policy, could experience indirect effects in terms of increased awareness of agricultural practices related to animal welfare.
Simulated Interviews
Farm Owner (Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy adds more paperwork, but I suppose transparency could boost consumer trust in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Animal Welfare Advocate (Iowa)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy because it holds operators accountable and promotes humane practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Large-Scale Livestock Farmer (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Initially, it feels like a hassle, but having accurate records could help in cases of disease outbreaks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Food Safety Consultant (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved transparency is great for food safety, ensuring that consumers know about the origins of their food.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Mid-sized Farm Manager (Nebraska)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like one more regulation that could hurt small and mid-sized farms with extra costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Animal Rights Activist (New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step towards ensuring ethical treatment, but more comprehensive measures are needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Agricultural Economist (Illinois)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The economic impact of compliance is minor, but the increased public trust could be significant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Veterinarian (Georgia)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having clearer reports on depopulation could streamline health management systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Policy Maker (Missouri)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a balanced approach to ensure accountability and transparency, promoting best practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (Pennsylvania)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could serve as a case study in balancing industry needs and environmental impacts.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $1800000 (Low: $1300000, High: $2300000)
Year 3: $1700000 (Low: $1200000, High: $2200000)
Year 5: $1600000 (Low: $1100000, High: $2100000)
Year 10: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Potential variability in cost due to changes in the scale and scope of required USDA oversight or expanded reporting requirements.
- Indirect costs absorbed by farm operators in compliance may lead to increased operational efficiencies or adaptation burden.
- Public scrutiny can demand robust verification systems, affecting USDA administrative and operational budgeting.
- The changing environments in which agriculture policies are implemented can significantly influence cost estimates.