May 2
Animal Farm 2.0
By Denise Ross
A report out this week from the National Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production seems to be yet another reason to eye your plate with suspicion.
A panel of experts … is recommending that the United States ban the routine use of antibiotics in farm animal feed.
The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production also proposes better tracking of diseases among farm animals, to help prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans.
That is from a story in the Baltimore Sun. Banning antibiotics for anything other than curing illness in animals (ie, to make them grow faster) is the commission’s No. 1 recommendation, as commissioners concluded that putting those antibiotics into the human food supply makes the human population more vulnerable to disease, as it makes the antibiotics less effective for humans and animals alike.
1. Ban the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in food animal production to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance to medically important antibiotics and other microbials.
The Hoghouse recommends reading the news reports that came out this week - the Washinton Post, the Des Moines Register, the Kansas City Star, the AP, Reuters, USA Today, Feedstuffs - if not reading the entire report itself, as this is not only the Hoghouse, this is South Dakota, where industrial animal farming is never far from the front page. (Witness the recent blockades of a tribal road in southeast SD to prevent construction of a large-scale hog operation.)
There’s more in the report about how large-scale animal operations affect rural folks like us.
3. Treat IFAP as an industrial operation and implement a new system to deal with farm waste to replace the inflexible and broken system that exists today, to protect Americans from the adverse environmental and human health hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste.
We all know the smell(s) in question. The report found higher rates of respiratory problems in people living near large-scale animal operations.
And then there’s this, seeking literally to allow animals to move.
4. Phase out the most intensive and inhumane production practices within a decade to reduce the risk of IFAP to public health and improve animal wellbeing (i.e., gestation crates [for pregnant sows] and battery cages [for chickens]).
Organizaitons that represent large-scale animal operations naturally aren’t thrilled with the report, and the Des Moines Register reported that some tried to interfere with the process.
Livestock interests tried to disrupt a wide-ranging study of their industry by threatening to yank financing for universities and scientists who assisted, a Pew Commission report released Tuesday alleges.
The 2-year study by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production concluded that the industry needs a vast overhaul …
The Register quotes Robert Martin, who used to work for Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD, and served as head staffer for the commission.
“We found significant influence by the industry at every turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, governmental regulation and enforcement.”
The industrial animal types did not deny that some of their practices are inhumane or that the waste harms the environment and human health. Their arguments were that changing things would increase food prices, that the industry is already moving to make some changes and that the commission was stacked against them from the beginning. (Read the reports for a fuller discussion of these points.)
The guy from the Missouri Farm Bureau made this point in the Kansas City Star.
“Essentially you are talking about driving production to Mexico, Brazil and other countries,” said Hawkins. “It makes me question how can American family farmers and ranchers compete in that type of environment if those regulations that they call for go into effect? The question becomes how does that impact food security in this country?”
Here’s how the Washington Post wrote about this aspect:
Several observers said the report, by experts with varying backgrounds and allegiances, is remarkable for the number of tough recommendations that survived the grueling research and review process, which participants said was politically charged and under constant pressure from powerful agricultural interests.
It seems to me this feeds into the whole “buy locally” movement that’s growing. That should be easier to do in SD than most places, maybe?
1 Comment so far
Leave a Reply
Some can refer to industrial farming as a great business that feeds millions of people throughout the world, keeping them from starvation. Although, it is not as good as many people make it out to be. In fact, it’s not only bad for the health of the animals that are living in these small cages, but it is very detrimental to the health of those who eat it. In our modern society, we have a variety of problems that seems to affect a lot of people in our country such as bad chemicals in foods, obesity, and the rising concern of pollution. In fact, industrial farming has to do with all three of those negative aspects. There are some known ways in which we can change the adverse effects, and it just needs to be lobbied to certain diplomats and senators.
As you all know, industrial farming feeds many people by using methods that some might find very subjective. With the use of industrial animal farming, come all the negative side-effects along with any other thing. Industrial animal farming uses a method of increasing the number of animals while decreasing the space they live in. Throughout the past decade, the number of farms in the U.S. has dropped, while the amount of animals produced has risen. (Loglisci 1) This is because of the smaller and smaller spaces that these animals are living in. This poses great problems on the environment and the actual animals themselves in which we will talk about. The reduction of proximity among animals increases the risk of disease and certain pathogens to be transmitted throughout the industry. Even then, it increases the risk of humans contracting certain diseases because of the pathogens that are circling through the air. With so many animals confined in such a small space there is no wonder that even humans are feeling the effects. (Loglisci 1) The effects of pathogens and diseases spreading is in part by three different reasons being prolonged worker contact with animals, increased antimicrobial resistant bacteria, and increased pathogen spreading amongst herds or flocks. (Loglisci 1)With certain deadly or even harmful pathogens giving rise to disease among humans what can we do? Neighborhoods and other community buildings around these animal factories are feeling the worst of the effects. So not only is industrial animal farming hurting the animals in the production, but it is also hurting our fellow man that are living around and working in these factories.
Another huge problem that seems to stem from industrial animal farming is a rising concern of obesity. Obesity affects around one-hundred twenty seven million adults today in our country. (American Obesity Association 2) It is also a rising concern that is being benefited in part by fast-food as well. So what can we do about obesity and industrial farming? Well the only logical thing we could do is to stop eating as much meat. We will not be able to stop industrial farming completely because of the overwhelming benefits, but what we can do as a society is cut down on the amount of red meat intake. In the 1970’s, the average American spent about 4.25% of his income on chicken/poultry and the like. (Kyriakides 3) Today, the average American spends about half of this amount in his income because of the advances in industrial animal farming. With the rising amount of meat and poultry available to buy, and the price of these meats dropping as well, it’s no wonder that our country is buying a lot of meat. It is no wonder that our country is obese and can not move away from this trend.
The Pew commission has stated four recommendations for the use of Industrial farm animal production that can not be ignored for too long because of the rising bad effects. (Kyriakides 3) The first recommendation was the reduction of antimicrobial use. This would, in-return, not let the bacteria in these factories develop an immunity that would impair the antibiotic use. With the breakthrough of antibiotics a couple decades ago, comes the rising problem of immunity of certain bacteria. This would cause epidemic breakouts that could go untreated and wipe out a whole herd or group of animals causing very drastic effects to our animal population. The second recommendation was to set-up some sort of monitoring system that could track when diseases spread. This would help workers at these factories confine the animals that are infected with certain diseases, also limiting the use of antibiotics. The third recommendation by the PEW commission would be to change the way we operate these factories. They wanted to treat industrial farming as an industry instead of agriculture, because of the waste disposal problem. Because industries always have issues regarding waste disposal, then if they adopted industry techniques these factories could then reduce the amount of emissions and actual damage to the earth. The last recommendation was to reduce the use of inhumane tactics such as battery cages. Many rights activists groups have been fighting for the reduction in inhumane tactics such as P.E.T.A. and the A.L.F. Finally their voices are heard and humane treatment to animals can be reached.
In conclusion, I have stated a variety of reasons to change the way in which we industrial farm. It not only affects the animals that are in these cages, but it also affects the people that are in the surrounding area. Certain diseases and pathogens are being transmitted to humans through the air affecting a number of people throughout our country. Also, animal emissions like methane and nitrogen are posing bad effects to our ecosystem and environment. The PEW commission has found four good changes that should be made and implemented because of the adverse affects on our society. So in reality, we should reduce the use of industrial farming because our country is having problems with obesity and being overweight and the increase in the amount of food we have is spurring this problem.
By: Taylor Rushing