[GJM] Fw: [globalnetnews-summary] Industrial Farm Animal Production in America

[mary rose]

It become more and more obvious that the only way
to end the crisis in the food chain is for us each to take
responsibility for growing one's own food organically.

While I am appreciative of the efforts of those who worked
on this report it will take years for anything to come of it.

We must take charge of our own well-being now.

mary rose .




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GlobalCirclenet" <webmaster at globalcircle.net>
To: <globalnetnews-summary at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:12 PM
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Industrial Farm Animal Production in 
America



(To change your settings or unsubscribe please go to
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/globalnetnews-summary)


Final Report: Putting Meat on The Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production 
in America
http://www.ncifap.org/
Executive Summary learn moreclick here (2.7 MB)
http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAP%20EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY.pdf
Full Report learn moreclick here (6.2 MB)
http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAP%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Pew Commission Says Industrial Scale Farm Animal Production Poses 
"Unacceptable" Risks to Public Health, Environment

(Washington, DC - April 29, 2008) The current industrial farm animal 
production (IFAP) system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, 
the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves, according to an 
extensive 2½-year examination conducted by the Pew Commission on Industrial 
Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP), in a study released today.

Commissioners have determined that the negative effects of the IFAP system 
are too great and the scientific evidence is too strong to ignore. 
Significant changes must be implemented and must start now. And while some 
areas of animal agriculture have recognized these threats and have taken 
action, it is clear that the industry has a long way to go.

Public Health

Over the past five decades, the number of farms producing animals for food 
has fallen dramatically, yet the number of food animals produced has 
remained roughly constant. It is the concentration of farm animals in larger 
and larger numbers in close proximity to one another, along with the 
potential of IFAP facilities to affect people, that give rise to many of the 
public health concerns that are attributed to IFAP. Animals in such close 
confinement, along with some of the feed and animal management methods 
employed in the system, increase pathogen risks and magnify opportunities 
for transmission from animals to humans. This increased risk is due to at 
least three factors: prolonged worker contact with animals, increased 
pathogen transmission within a herd or flock, and the increased 
opportunities for the generation of antimicrobial resistant bacteria (due to 
imprudent antimicrobial use) or new strains of viruses. Stresses induced by 
confinement may also increase the likelihood of infection and illness in 
animal populations.

Communities near IFAP facilities are subject to air emissions that can 
significantly affect certain segments of the population. Those most 
vulnerable-children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic or acute 
pulmonary or heart disorders-are at particular risk. The impacts on the 
health of those living near IFAP facilities have increasingly been the 
subject of epidemiological research. Adverse community health effects from 
exposure to IFAP air emissions fall into two categories: (1) respiratory 
symptoms, disease and impaired function, and (2) neurobehavioral symptoms 
and impaired function.

Environment

As with public health impacts, much of IFAP's environmental impact stems 
from the tremendous quantities of animal waste that are concentrated on IFAP 
premises. Animal waste in such volumes may exceed the capacity of the 
landscape to absorb the nutrients and neutralize pathogens. Thus, what 
should be a valuable byproduct (e.g., fertilizer) becomes a waste that must 
be disposed of.

According to the EPA, the annual production of manure produced by animal 
confinement facilities exceeds that produced by humans by at least three 
times. Unlike most human sewage, the majority of IFAP is spread on the 
ground untreated. Manure in such large quantities carries excess nutrients 
and farm chemicals that find their way into waterways, lakes, groundwater, 
soils and airways. Excess and inappropriate land application of untreated 
animal waste on cropland contributes to excessive nutrient loading and, 
ultimately, eutrophication of surface waters. Eutrophication is an excess of 
nutrients in a body of water, mostly nitrates and phosphates from erosion 
and runoff of surrounding lands, that causes a dense growth of plant life 
and the death of aquatic animal life due to lack of oxygen.

IFAP runoff also carries antibiotics and hormones, pesticides, and heavy 
metals. Antibiotics are used to prevent and treat bacterial infections and 
as growth promoters. Pesticides are used to control insect infestations and 
fungal growth. Heavy metals, especially zinc and copper, are added as 
micronutrients to the animal diet.

According to a 2006 UN report, globally, greenhouse gas emissions from all 
livestock operations account for 18% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas 
emissions, exceeding those from the transportation sector. IFAP can produce 
greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. Other greenhouse gases, 
primarily nitrous oxide, arise mainly from the microbial degradation of 
manure.

Air quality degradation is also a problem in and around IFAP facilities 
because of the localized release of significant quantities of toxic gases, 
odorous substances, and particulates and bioaerosols that contain a variety 
of microorganisms including human pathogens. Some of the most objectionable 
compounds are the organic acids, which include acetic acid, butyric acids, 
valeric acids, caproic acids, and propanoic acid; sulfur containing 
compounds such as hydrogen sulfide and dimethyl sulfide; and 
nitrogen-containing compounds including ammonia, methyl amines, methyl 
pyrazines, skatoles and indoles.

It is also recognized that ammonia emissions from livestock contribute 
significantly to the eutrophication and acidification of soil and water. 
Some level of nutrient overload occurs naturally, but this process can be 
accelerated by human activities. Acidification can put stress on species 
diversity in the natural environment.

Animal Welfare

IFAP methods for raising food animals have generated concern and debate over 
just what constitutes a reasonable life for animals and what kind of quality 
of life we owe the animals in our care. It is an ethical dilemma that 
transcends objective scientific measures, and incorporates value-based 
concerns. Physical health as measured by absence of some diseases or 
predation, for example, may be enhanced through confinement since the 
animals may not be exposed to certain infectious agents or sources of injury 
that would be encountered if the animals were raised outside of confinement. 
It is clear, however, that good animal welfare can no longer be assumed 
based only on the absence of disease or productivity outcomes. Intensive 
confinement (e.g. gestation crates for swine, battery cages for laying hens) 
often so severely restricts movement and natural behaviors, such as the 
ability to walk or lie on natural materials, having enough floor space to 
move with some freedom, and rooting for pigs, that it increases the 
likelihood that the animals suffer severe distress.

Good animal welfare can also help to protect the safety of our nation's food 
supply. Scientists have long recognized that food safety is linked to the 
health of the animals that produce the meat, dairy, and egg products that we 
eat. In fact, scientists have found modern intensive confinement production 
systems can be stressful for food animals, and that stress can increase 
pathogen shedding in animals.


Rural America

Life in rural America has long been challenged by persistent poverty. The 
causes are many, but among them is the lack of economic diversity in rural 
economies. Workers have few options in the event of a plant closure or other 
dislocation, and unemployment rates are high. Consequently, IFAP is 
frequently considered an attractive new source of economic opportunity by 
local economic development officials, but with this transition comes 
significant change including public health threats.

The industrialization of American agriculture has transformed the character 
of agriculture itself and, in so doing, the face of rural America.  The 
family-owned farm producing a diverse mix of crops and food animals is 
largely gone as an economic entity, replaced by ever-larger operations 
producing just one animal species, or growing just one crop, and many rural 
communities have fared poorly.

As the food animal industry shifted to a system of captive supply 
transactions controlled by production contracts, economic power shifted from 
farmers to livestock processors or so-called integrators.  Farmers 
relinquished their once autonomous, animal husbandry decision-making 
authority in exchange for contracts that provide assured payment, but 
require substantial capital investment. Once the commitment is made to such 
capital investment, many farmers have no choice but to continue to produce 
until the loan is paid off. Such contracts make it nearly impossible for 
there to be open and competitive markets for most hog and poultry producers, 
who must enter into contracts with the integrators (meat packing companies) 
if they are to sell their production.

Although the proponents of the industrialization of animal agriculture point 
to the increased economic efficiency of IFAP operations, the Commission is 
concerned that the benefits may not accrue in the same way to affected rural 
communities.  In fact, industrialization leading to corporate ownership 
actually draws investment and wealth from the communities in which specific 
IFAP facilities are located.

The Commission's recommendations focus on appropriate siting of IFAP 
facilities in order to prevent further degradation of air, water, and soils 
and to minimize the impact on adjacent communities.

Below are the Commission's key recommendations.

    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.

    2. Implement a disease monitoring program for food animals to allow 
48-hour trace-back of those animals through aspects of their production, in 
a fully integrated and robust national database.

    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.

    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 and battery cages).

    5. Federal and state laws need to be amended and enforced to provide a 
level playing field for producers when entering contracts with integrators.

    6. Increase funding for, expand and reform, animal agriculture research.

"The goal of this Commission is to sound the alarms that significant change 
is urgently needed in industrial farm animal production," says John Carlin, 
PCIFAP Chairman and former Kansas governor. "I believe that the IFAP system 
was first developed simply to help increase farmer productivity and that the 
negative effects were never intended. Regardless, the consequences are real 
and serious and must be addressed."

Our energy, water and climate resources are undergoing dramatic changes 
that, in the judgment of the Commissioners, will require agriculture to 
transition to much more biologically diverse systems, organized into 
biological interactions that exchange energy, improve soil quality, and 
conserve water and other resources. "Long-term success will depend on the 
nation's ability to transform from an industrial economy that depends on 
quickly diminishing resources to one that is more sustainable, employing 
renewable resources and understanding of how all food production affects 
public health and the environment," says Michael Blackwell, PCIFAP Vice 
Chair and former dean of the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary 
Medicine and former Assistant Surgeon General, (Ret.) USPHS.

The PCIFAP consists of 15 Commissioners who bring individual knowledge and 
expertise in diverse fields, including public policy, veterinary medicine, 
public health, agriculture, animal welfare, the food industry and rural 
society.  The Commission assessed the current state of industrial animal 
agriculture based on site visits to production facilities across the 
country; consultation with industry stakeholders, public health, medical and 
agriculture experts; public meetings; peer-reviewed technical reports; staff 
research; and Commissioners' own expertise. PCIFAP is a project of The Pew 
Charitable Trusts and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.