The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Dec. 28, 2007, proposal in a second attempt to exempt farms from reporting air pollution caused by animal waste and to reduce information available about toxins at the local level.

In response to entreaties by the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association in 2005, EPA initially attempted to exempt only ammonia emissions from poultry farms. The new rule proposal extends the reporting loophole to all farms with any hazardous substance resulting from any animal waste released into the air. Farms must still report other water and land waste.

Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986 in response to concerns about human and environmental health from toxic spills and pollution. National, state, and local emergency response teams were organized to ensure the immediate and well-planned reaction to any chemically dangerous situation. EPCRA details public notification as crucial for those emergency plans. In addition to requiring companies to report spills and pollution levels to the federal government, the law also also tasks companies with divulging specifics to emergency response teams, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). These entities are responsible for participating in response planning and providing information to the public to allow citizens to make their own risk evaluations.

The EPA explained that in developing this exemption proposal, it had reasoned that since the air releases are unlikely to trigger an EPA emergency response — having never done so before — mandatory reporting is an unnecessary administrative burden on both industry and government. However, EPA failed to consider the importance of publicly available information about local pollutants and exceedances of reportable quantities (RQs) — above which EPA considers there to be the "possibility" of harm. Currently, farms only have to report when pollution levels rise above a chemical's RQ, and farms routinely release hazardous substances above their RQs. The lack of consistent compliance suggests that no longer requiring information disclosure is an effort to sweep a messy problem under the rug. The intent of EPCRA was to act as preventative legislation, ensuring that sufficient information is disclosed and well-formed plans are created to prevent and properly respond to emergencies.

Government research has shown that animal waste causes significant environmental problems. The role of such waste in climate change and water pollution has also been well documented. The public health impacts from air pollution are also significant: multiple studies in North Carolina and Iowa have found respiratory and mental health problems in residents close to animal factories.

EPA has also recognized that current air monitoring practices, which limit investigations about the correlation between animal waste air pollution and human health, are inadequate. In attempts to determine farms' compliance with regulations, EPA initiated a two-year air emissions monitoring study in large animal farms in June 2007. Although some environmentalists believed the study to be little more than a stalling tactic, acknowledgement of the lack of basic air pollution data actually bolsters the argument that more information is needed rather than less. Instead, the proposed rule would weaken regulatory oversight and public accountability and ignores the central principal of EPCRA — that potential health concerns should be known publicly so that people can participate in protecting themselves.