This review focuses on the economics of policies in US states (or localities) that have regulated farm practices and related behavior. Some of these policies represent long-standing policies to govern the nature of farm organization, such as regulation of corporate ownership, investment, or organization. Other more recent policies attempt to affect specific scientific innovations, such as the use of seeds developed using modern biology (e.g., foods from genetically modified organisms). Another recent group of state laws and regulations addresses treatment of farm animals. Finally, treatment of the production and marketing of marijuana is the most recent state agricultural regulation to spark widespread interest and controversy. State and local regulations of farm practices are of broad practical interest because they affect markets beyond their jurisdictions. Broad concerns also follow if the regulations set legal or political precedents, or when rules apply to farm practices in outside jurisdictions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Adelaja AO, Brumfield RG, Lininger K. 1990. Product differentiation and state promotion of farm produce: an analysis of the Jersey Fresh tomato. J. Food Distrib. Res. 21:373–85 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allender WJ, Richards TJ. 2010. Consumer impact of animal welfare regulation in the California poultry industry. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 35:424–42 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alston JM, Andersen MA, James JS, Pardey PG. 2009. Persistence Pays: US Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending Berlin: Springer Sci. Bus. Media [Google Scholar]
  4. Alston JM, Crespi JM, Kaiser HM, Sexton RJ. 2007. An evaluation of California's mandated commodity promotion programs. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 29:140–63 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alston JM, Sumner DA. 2012. Proposition 37–California food labeling initiative: economic implications for farmers and the food industry if the proposed initiative were adopted Rep. Int. Sci. Tech. Pract. Policy, Univ. Minn. http://www.instepp.umn.edu/products/proposition-37-%E2%80%93-california-food-labeling-initiative-economic-implications-farmers-and-food [Google Scholar]
  6. Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias 468 U.S. 263 1984. [Google Scholar]
  7. Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 1935. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bovay J, Alston JM. 2016. GM labeling regulation by plebiscite: analysis of voting on Proposition 37 in California. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 41:61–88 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bovay J, Sumner DA. 2017. Voter and consumer evaluation of restrictions on farm animal treatment Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. Agric. Issues Cent., Davis [Google Scholar]
  10. Brooker JR, Eastwood DB. 1989. Using state logos to increase purchases of selected food products. J. Food Distrib. Res. 20:1175–83 [Google Scholar]
  11. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 1980. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carroll KA, Bernard JC, Pesek JD. 2013. Consumer preferences for tomatoes: the influence of local, organic, and state program promotions by purchasing venue. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 38:379–96 [Google Scholar]
  13. Caswell JA, Kleinschmit JK. 1997. Using benefit-cost criteria for settling federalism disputes: an application to food safety regulation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79:24–38 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chang JB, Lusk JL, Norwood FB. 2010. The price of happy hens: a hedonic analysis of retail egg prices. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 35:406–23 [Google Scholar]
  15. Clements KW, Zhao X. 2009. Economics and Marijuana: Consumption, Pricing and Legalisation New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  16. Connolly C, Klaiber HA. 2014. Does organic command a premium when the food is already local?. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96:1102–16 [Google Scholar]
  17. Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Hoen 538 F.3d 1128 2008. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dean Milk Co. v. Madison 340 U.S. 349 1951. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dunham J. 2016. Cost impact of Vermont's GMO labeling law on consumers nationwide Rep. to Corn Refin. Assoc Washington, DC: http://corn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Cost-Impact-of-Vermont%E2%80%99s-GMO-Labeling-Law-on-Consumers-Nationwide.pdf [Google Scholar]
  20. Fatka J. 2016. ND voters turn down law to relax corporate farming restrictions. Feedstuffs Blog June 16. http://www.feedstuffs.com/story-nd-voters-turn-down-law-relax-corporate-farming-restrictions-45-142718 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L. 2014. Genetically engineered crops in the United States Econ. Res. Rep. 162, US Dep. Agric., Econ. Res. Serv Washington, DC: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45179/43668_err162.pdf?v=41690 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. Granholm v. Heald 544 U.S. 460 2005. [Google Scholar]
  24. Greene JL, Cowan T. 2012. Table egg production and hen welfare: the UEP-HSUS agreement and HR 3798 CRS Rep. to Congr., Congressional Res. Serv Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
  25. Gundersen C, Kuhn B, Offutt S, Morehart M. 2004. A consideration of the devolution of federal agricultural policy Econ. Res. Rep. 836, US Dep. Agric., Econ. Res. Serv Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
  26. Gustafson CR, Lybbert TJ, Sumner DA. 2016. Consumer sorting and hedonic valuation of wine attributes: exploiting data from a field experiment. Agric. Econ. 47:191–103 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heng Y, Peterson HH, Li X. 2013. Consumer attitudes toward farm-animal welfare: the case of laying hens. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 38:418–34 [Google Scholar]
  28. H.P. Hood and Sons v. Dumond 300 N.Y. 480 1949. [Google Scholar]
  29. Huffman WE, McCluskey J. 2014. The economics of labeling GM foods. AgBioForum 17:156–60 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission 432 U.S. 333 1977. [Google Scholar]
  31. Isik M. 2004. Environmental regulation and the spatial structure of the US dairy sector. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86:949–62 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacobi L, Sovinsky M. 2016. Marijuana on Main Street? Estimating the demand in markets with limited access. Am. Econ. Rev. 106:2009–45 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones v. Gale 470 F.3d 1261 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kalaitzandonakes N, Alston JM, Bradford KJ. 2006. Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy RE Just, JM Alston, D Zilberman 37–57 New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  35. Kling CL. 2011. Economic incentives to improve water quality in agricultural landscapes: some new variations on old ideas. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93:297–309 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kling CL. 2013. State level efforts to regulate agricultural sources of water quality impairment. Choices 28:1–4 [Google Scholar]
  37. Knoeber CR. 1997. Explaining state bans on corporate farming. Econ. Inq. 35:151–66 [Google Scholar]
  38. Krause KR. 1983. Corporate Farming: Importance, Incentives, and State Restrictions Washington, DC: US Dep. Agric., Econ. Res. Serv. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee H, Alston JM, Carman HF, Sutton W. 1996. Mandated marketing programs for California commodities Inf. Ser. 96-1, Giannini Found., Univ. Calif Berkeley: [Google Scholar]
  40. Lesser W, Lynch S. 2014. Costs of labeling genetically modified food products in N.Y. state Work. Pap., Dyson Sch. Appl. Econ. Manag., Cornell Univ Ithaca, NY: [Google Scholar]
  41. Lusk JL. 2010. The effect of Proposition 2 on the demand for eggs in California. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 8:13 [Google Scholar]
  42. Malone T, Lusk JL. 2016. Putting the chicken before the egg price: an ex post analysis of California's battery cage ban. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 41:518–32 [Google Scholar]
  43. Matthews WA, Sumner DA. 2015. Effects of housing system on the costs of commercial egg production. Poult. Sci. 94:552–57 [Google Scholar]
  44. McFadden BR, Lusk JL. 2013. Effects of cost and campaign advertising on support for California's Proposition 37. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 38:174–86 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mendelson R. 2009. From Demon to Darling: A Legal History of Wine in America Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Metcalfe M. 2000. State legislation regulating animal manure management. Rev. Agric. Econ. 22:519–32 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mullally C, Lusk JL. 2015. Happy hens, sad consumers? The economic impact of restrictions on farm animal housing in California Work. Pap., Dep. Agric. Econ., Okla. State Univ Stillwater: [Google Scholar]
  48. NEMC (Northbridge Environ. Manag. Consult.) 2012. The genetically engineered food mandatory labeling initiative: overview of anticipated impacts and estimated costs to consumers Rep., NEMC Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
  49. NEMC (Northbridge Environ. Manag. Consult.) 2013. Washington State Initiative Measure No. 522: overview of estimated costs to consumers Rep., NEMC Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
  50. Nicholson B. 2016. More challenge North Dakota anti-corporate farming law. Des Moines Register Aug. 26. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2016/08/26/north-dakota-anti-corporate-farming-law-new-plaintiffs/89404222/ [Google Scholar]
  51. Norwood FB, Lusk JL. 2011a. A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 62:180–94 [Google Scholar]
  52. Norwood FB, Lusk JL. 2011b. Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  53. Patterson PM. 2006. State-grown promotion programs: Fresher, better?. Choices 21:141–46 [Google Scholar]
  54. Qaim M. 2009. The economics of genetically modified crops. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1:665–94 [Google Scholar]
  55. Qaim M. 2016. Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural Development New York: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  56. Quill v. North Dakota 405 U.S. 298 312 1992. [Google Scholar]
  57. Riekhof GM, Sykuta ME. 2005. Politics, economics, and the regulation of direct interstate shipping in the wine industry. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87:439–52 [Google Scholar]
  58. Roe BE, Teisl MF, Deans CR. 2014. The economics of voluntary versus mandatory labels. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6:407–27 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rosen S. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit. Econ. 82:134–55 [Google Scholar]
  60. Saitone TL, Sexton RJ, Sumner DA. 2015. What happens when food marketers require restrictive farming practices?. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97:1021–43 [Google Scholar]
  61. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States 295 U.S. 495 1935. [Google Scholar]
  62. Schroeter JR, Azzam AM, Aiken JD. 2006. Anti-corporate farming laws and industry structure: the case of cattle feeding. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 88:1000–14 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schultz AB. 2009a. Corporate-farming measures in a post-Jones world. Drake J. Agric. Law 14:97 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schultz AB. 2009b. Nebraska's corporate-farming law and discriminatory effects under the dormant Commerce Clause. Nebr. Law Rev. 88:150–123 [Google Scholar]
  65. Smithson K, Corbin M, Lusk JL, Norwood FB. 2014. Predicting state-wide votes on ballot initiatives to ban battery cages and gestation crates. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 46:107–24 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sumner DA, Gow H, Hayes D, Matthews WA, Norwood B. 2011. Economic and market issues on the sustainability of egg production in the United States: analysis of alternative production systems. Poult. Sci. 90:241–50 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sumner DA, Matthews WA, Mench JA, Rosen-Molina JT. 2010. The economics of regulations on hen housing in California. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 42:429–38 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sumner DA, Rosen-Molina JT, Matthews WA, Mench JA, Richter KR. 2008. Economic effects of proposed restrictions on egg-laying hen housing in California Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. Agric. Issues Cent Davis: [Google Scholar]
  69. Sumner DA, Wilson NLW. 2000. Creation and distribution of economic rents by regulation: development and evolution of milk marketing orders in California. Agric. Hist. 74:198–210 [Google Scholar]
  70. Sunstein CR. 2016. On mandatory labeling, with special reference to genetically modified foods. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 165:1043–95 [Google Scholar]
  71. Swedenburg v. Kelly 358 F.3d 223 2004. [Google Scholar]
  72. Tonsor GT, Olynk NJ, Wolf CA. 2009. Consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes: the case of gestation crates. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 41:713–30 [Google Scholar]
  73. Tonsor GT, Wolf CA. 2010. Drivers of resident support for animal care oriented ballot initiatives. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 43:419–28 [Google Scholar]
  74. Tonsor GT, Wolf CA. 2011. On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes. Food Policy 36:430–37 [Google Scholar]
  75. United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 1936. [Google Scholar]
  76. Welsh R, Carpentier CL, Hubbell B. 2001. On the effectiveness of state anti-corporate farming laws in the United States. Food Policy 26:543–48 [Google Scholar]
  77. Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 1942. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wiseman AE, Ellig J. 2007. The politics of wine: trade barriers, interest groups, and the commerce clause. J. Polit. 69:859–75 [Google Scholar]
  79. Zilberman D, Kaplan S, Kim E, Waterfield G. 2014. Lessons from the California labeling proposition on the state of crop biotechnology. Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development SJ Smyth, PWB Phillip, D Castle 538–49 London: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error