Bill Overview
Title: Innovative Agricultural Technology Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish the Innovative Agricultural Technology Pilot Program to enable certain U.S. citizens and corporations to test agricultural technologies without complying with applicable laws or regulations, subject to market access limits. Additionally, USDA must (1) establish an online program that educates agricultural producers about using distributed ledger technology in agricultural production, and (2) conduct a study to identify potential applications for distributed ledger technology in agricultural operations.
Sponsors: Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
Target Audience
Population: Agricultural producers and those in the agricultural technology sector
Estimated Size: 21000000
- The bill targets agricultural producers and those involved in the agricultural technology sector.
- The bill involves an educational component for agricultural producers about distributed ledger technology, indicating a focus on modernizing agriculture.
- A pilot program allowing testing without regulatory compliance implies a focus on innovation and development in agriculture.
- The study of distributed ledger technology's applications could affect businesses and individuals involved in tech-forward agriculture.
Reasoning
- The policy is targeted towards agricultural producers and those in the agricultural technology sector, which includes a wide variety of roles from small family-owned farms to large corporate entities.
- Given the innovation aspect of the policy and the exemption from regulations, we must consider people who are likely early adopters of technology in agriculture.
- The budget allows for substantial support over 10 years, suggesting long-term potential impact on wellbeing for participants and potentially shifting industry standards.
- Some individuals and organizations may be skeptical of deregulation impacts on safety and environmental standards, which could cause unease even if they benefit economically.
- Rural communities heavily reliant on agriculture are likely to be affected, but the degree of impact will vary based on their current use of technology and openness to innovation.
Simulated Interviews
Corn Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious about using new tech because I can't afford a big setback.
- Education on new technologies sounds promising if it's straightforward and useful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Agricultural Tech Entrepreneur (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a fantastic opportunity to test our new systems without red tape.
- It's great to see acknowledgment of tech in agriculture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unsure how this will help ranchers, it seems focused on crops and high-tech
- Hope the online education is more than just fluff
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Organic Farmer (Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Innovation is important but must be sustainable.
- Worried about the costs associated with shifting to tech-focused farming.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Agri-Tech Consultant (Nebraska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could drive a lot of growth and efficiency in large-scale operations.
- It's important to balance tech innovation with practical applications for farmers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Farming Co-op Manager (Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Co-ops could benefit from shared resources under this program.
- Education on distributed ledger could help us improve operations.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Grain Elevator Operator (North Dakota)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The pilot could help refine our storage tech without immediate compliance risks.
- Important to remain competitive with new technologies.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tech Developer for Agriculture Apps (Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited to see how distributed ledgers can be applied in our apps.
- Deregulation offers us a good sandbox to innovate further.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
University Agricultural Researcher (Kentucky)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education and deregulation could spur more innovation.
- Hope it doesn't just benefit large corporations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (New York)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Wary of deregulation, could lead to unchecked environmental harm.
- Hope policy includes strong oversight and standards.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $64000000, High: $96000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- The pilot program allows testing without laws or regulations compliance, which could lead to both innovation and potential regulatory risks.
- Education on distributed ledger technology could advance technological adoption in agriculture.
- Long-term success could pivot on incorporating findings from the distributed ledger technology study into actual practice.