Elizabeth Brubaker responds to “Our Toxic Harvest”

Elizabeth Brubaker
Literary Review of Canada
September 20, 2007

In her review of Greener Pastures: Decentralizing the Regulation of Agricultural Pollution, Harriet Friedmann is right to insist that not all agricultural pollution can be addressed by restoring rural residents’ rights to challenge agricultural nuisances in court. As Friedmann explains, “to hang the solution to agricultural pollution on courts responding to complaints by neighbours seems wildly inadequate…. [Neighbours] cannot be expected to take responsibility for wider problems that affect whole societies, watersheds, and bioregions.”

Friedmann is not right, however, to suggest that I embrace such a solution. In Greener Pastures, I propose a layered regulatory environment in which private citizens can initiate legal action, communities can control land use through zoning and planning, those sharing a watershed can regulate pollutants in their river basin, and upper levels of government can manage issues with broader implications. I argue, “Only when local environmental impacts are addressed locally and broader impacts are regulated at higher levels will farming become truly sustainable.”

I advocate a regulatory regime that respects the principle of subsidiarity, under which decisions are made as closely as possible to the people themselves – where feasible, by individuals; otherwise, as required, by local communities or higher levels of government. Restoring control of agriculture’s impacts to the lowest workable level will best reflect the diverse needs and values of affected individuals and communities. It will also most effectively protect the natural environment, since those who are directly affected by pollution have long proven to be our most reliable environmental stewards.

The pollutants from which local people would, under such a system, protect themselves could come from farms of all sizes. Friedmann distinguishes between large corporate livestock businesses (often referred to as Factory Farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations) and traditional farms. While rightly pointing out that large animal operations are some of the worst agricultural polluters, she overlooks the severe environmental damage done by smaller farms. Manure from a family farm with fewer than 100 cattle contaminated Walkerton’s well water.

Little evidence supports Friedmann’s suggestion that traditional farmers object to the right-to-farm laws that shield farmers from legal liability for the nuisances they create. While many complaints about larger farms do originate with more traditional farmers, the latter have not shunned the protection offered by right-to-farm laws. Indeed, the organizations lobbying for New Brunswick’s first right-to-farm law represented hundreds of small farmers producing a variety of animals and crops.

Click here to view the original article, ” Our Toxic Harvest”

Advertisements

One thought on “Elizabeth Brubaker responds to “Our Toxic Harvest”

  1. Pingback: Our Toxic Harvest: is deregulation the way to reduce agricultural pollution? | Environment Probe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s