When the news came out in late April that Michigan’s Right to Farm Act, passed in 1981, had been revised to subject both small and tiny farm livestock operations to local zoning rules, it hit like a lit match. Fevered articles on news and advocacy sites — both progressive and conservative and heavily shared on social media — painted a grim picture about how the rule change foretold the end of small farms in cities and suburbs. Did you know that Americans are being “stripped” of their right to farm and that “the crushing state of Michigan” is criminalizing citizens who want to cultivate chickens, honeybees and other creatures in their backyards? Alarmed by the news, activists went to work. A beekeeper swiftly collected 40,000 signatures on an online petition asking the agency to reverse the rule change. The assistant director of the Michigan Sierra Club told MLive, a news site, that she believed the change would “effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.” As a result of the pressure, the Michigan Senate Agriculture Committee has agreed to a new hearing where these opinions can be voiced. But all this opinionating is misguided: It confuses urban farmers (and their neighbors), while undercutting the credibility of those of us who are searching for sustainable ways to live and eat. First of all, the Michigan state agency criminalized nothing. The policy change by the state’s Department of Agriculture only modified its generally approved agricultural practices regarding where livestock facilities may be located. (You can read the full revised site-selection policy here.) In acknowledgment of the rise of urban farming, the rule change added a new category of locations for farms with animals: suburbs, cities and other primarily residential communities. The agency simply advises local municipalities to decide for themselves how farming should work in their communities; nothing is immediately outlawed. The agency says, specifically, that this move is meant to “clarify those situations when decisions regarding the keeping of farm animals in primarily residential areas should be made by local communities.”

With clarification from the state that backyard farming is a local power, more affirmative policies are likely to be in the works.

This is a completely reasonable policy. Urban farming laws have always been handled at the local level, which is not only appropriate but also good for farmers. Say a couple of prospective urban farmers are frustrated with their city for banning goat- or beekeeping. They have a much better chance of influencing that policy for the better if it is a local ordinance rather than a statewide law or statute. City Hall is the right place for decisions to take place on where and how to farm. As the Department of Agriculture put in its FAQ page about the rule change, it "supports the expansion of agriculture, whether for personal consumption or for local sale/distribution, as it provides an opportunity for people to be closer to local food sources … [But the department] has consistently said the expansion of agriculture into urban and suburban settings must be done in a way that makes sense for all community residents, as well as the overall care of farm animals and livestock. Who decides what animal policies make sense? The communities themselves, according to our new rules. As it happens, more than 40 Michigan municipalities, including Detroit, already have policies that support the keeping of backyard poultry, and many townships allow for the same. With clarification from the state that backyard farming is a local power, more affirmative policies are likely to be in the works.

Broad protections