PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 29, 2022
Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act of 2022
This bill establishes additional requirements for larger animal feeding operations (AFOs) owned or controlled by industrial operators and increases handling requirements for livestock and poultry.
Specifically, the bill establishes the Office of High-Risk AFO Disaster Mitigation and Enforcement within the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and requires such industrial operators to register with the office and submit annual disaster mitigation plans (e.g., for public health emergencies and major disasters). In addition, industrial operators must pay annual disaster mitigation maintenance fees to the office and are liable for costs associated with disaster events or depopulation (the rapid destruction of animals in response to urgent circumstances).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Industrial operators are restricted from using specified methods of depopulation; any person may sue an industrial operator or USDA over a violation. Further, USDA must establish depopulation standards that rapidly induce unconsciousness and death with minimal pain and distress.
The Department of Labor must enforce minimum labor standards for industrial operators regarding covered workers or affected contract growers in disaster mitigation events, including whistleblower protections and health insurance requirements. Further, industrial operators may not use incarcerated workers in these events.
The bill also includes provisions on the handling of livestock and poultry, such as
requiring USDA to set additional standards for animal transport;
including poultry in the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 and creating a USDA grant program to transition processing facilities to a different slaughter method;
requiring USDA to promulgate certain regulations regarding the humane treatment, euthanasia, and disposition of nonambulatory livestock; and
terminating programs that allow for slaughter speeds that exceed existing limits or reduce the use of federal inspectors.
People & committees
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.5138 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.5138 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.5138 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.5138 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.