The Impact
of Factory Farming on Global Water Supply
By Alexis
Wyrofsky
May 5, 2006
International
Environmental Law
Professor
Joyner
The days of bucolic farm scenes are over. “Old McDonald’s Farm,” which described cows
lazily grazing on open pastures, pigs bathing in cool mud, and chickens
carelessly scratching in dirt, no longer conveys the true story about our
source of meat. The entire food system
has developed into a highly efficient and inexpensive industrialized machine,
replacing the traditional farm structure, which flourished for centuries. As we increased our desire for meat in our
diets, small, self-sustaining farms could no longer satisfy the demand, and
meat production became another factory-produced commodity manufactured on a
mass scale. Therefore, this paper will
attempt to demonstrate the current crisis to the global water supply, and
consequently to human health, caused by the phenomenon of factory farming. It was also explore regulations imposed by
the United States
and the European Union, and analyze their effectiveness. Furthermore, it will discuss how the United
Nations is presently addressing this issue, and will conclude by offering some
potential solutions via structural overhaul and the introduction of international
law.
What is a
Factory Farm?
Nowadays, livestock are raised
in enormous indoor facilities the size of football fields, in which they spend
most of their lives crammed closely together. Rather than receiving sustenance
from the land, animals are fed excessive amounts of
grains, which are produced on an equally widespread scale. Pigs, for example, are
overfed to such an extent that they grow to 250 pounds by the time they
are 6 months old. Furthermore, their waste accumulates in high
volumes, and because the livestock are separated from
crops, manure must be stored in cement storage facilities, rather than utilized
to fertilize the land. The entire
process is removed from the natural self-sustaining
cycle of traditional farming practices, and has been replaced with an
industrialized model, called a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO),
resulting in meat that is cheaper and more readily available.
This is extremely beneficial to the corporations
that produce meat on such a mass scale.
These large producers have monopolized the market and put small farms
out of business. For example, twenty
years ago, there were 662,000 hog farms in North Carolina;
now there are only 209,000. Less than 10
percent of the farms currently in operation raise 90 percent of pork produced
in North Carolina. This results in accrued wealth by livestock
corporations. For example, Turner farms
boasted $141 million in gross sales in 1995.
However, this
mechanized cost-efficiency comes at a price.
Due to the high volume of animals produced per facility, in addition to
the practices employed to fatten livestock in a shorter amount of time, the
impact on the environment is catastrophic.
In particular, factory-farming practices cause severe damage to the
global water supply, as both the input and the output of livestock production
create water pollution and depletion.
This effect on the world’s water is unfortunately pertinent today, as
the global demand for water has increased due to a burgeoning population, while
freshwater supply has shrunk due to contamination and exhaustion from wasteful
farming and industrial practices. China
and India are
the most threatened by diminishing water supplies, as their populations are
currently abounding at unsustainable levels.
Furthermore, the environmental regulations of these countries are lax
compared to those of western countries, and therefore, they have polluted much
of the water they have accessed. For
example, 22 percent of the world’s population resides in China;
however, the country only has 8 percent of the world’s freshwater. Furthermore, the Chinese have exacerbated the
situation by polluting their water. In
2004, 412 locations were tested for water quality on China’s
seven rivers, of which 58 percent were found to be inadequate for
consumption. In India,
the situation is equally dire, as farmers pump one sixth of India’s
internally renewable water each year from underground aquifers. Only a fraction of this water is replenished by rainfall, prompting an analyst from the
World Bank to call India’s
water situation “extremely grave.”
Effects on Water Supply: Input
Due to this
pending crisis of global water supply, the meat industry’s contribution to
water pollution and depletion is cause for concern. Livestock production requires massive amounts
of water for each of the many levels of the process. First, industrialized animals are fed grain, primarily corn and soybeans, which are grown
in an equally large-scaled, unsustainable way.
In the past, farms that grew corn also grew other crops as well as
livestock, which was a highly supportable method of food production. However, it became less economically viable
to grow crops and livestock in this manner, and consequently, the system
adapted to what it is today--thousands of acres of a single-species of corn or
soybeans, consuming huge quantities of water and chemical fertilizer. Farmers are unable to rely solely on
rainwater to nourish these monolithic crops, and therefore must employ
irrigation techniques in which water is harvested from
dams, rivers, lakes, as well as deep underground aquifers. However, this process of “water mining,” in
which water is extracted from underground wells, is environmentally damaging
because the erosion of topsoil and deficiency of natural vegetation prevents
rainwater from seeping into the ground, and it is instead
washed away. For example, the
Ogallala Aquifer, which extends from Texas
to Nebraska, has been water mined
to such an extent that from 1961 to 1981, it had been
depleted by 20 percent, and it is projected that it will remain for only
40 more years. The situation is further
worsened by the fact that current irrigation practices are incredibly
wasteful, thereby requiring the harvesting of higher quantities of freshwater
than is needed. For example, 50 percent
of irrigated water evaporates before it reaches the intended crops. These current agricultural practices are
unsustainable, as the world must be able to refill its own water reserves if we
expect to have continuing access to freshwater.
The meat industry
directly contributes to this crisis of water supply, as livestock is the
primary consumer of these crops. The United
States currently produces 2,900 pounds of
grain per person per year. However, 85
to 90 percent of this grain is used to feed animals
intended for consumption. Therefore, these acres upon acres of corn and
soybeans that guzzle irrigated water and deplete water supplies are primarily being used to feed livestock, and a relatively
small percentage of these crops find their way directly into the kitchen
cabinet. In the United
States, 85 percent of the water resources in
17 western states are used to irrigate crops. In addition, large quantities of water are needed during the slaughtering and meatpacking
processes. For example, one small plant
in China
responsible for chicken slaughtering uses 100 million gallons of water per day,
which is equivalent to the quantity of water needed to sustain a town of 25,000
people. It is also
interesting to note the discrepancy between indirect water use of those
individuals who eat meat versus those who are vegetarians: when one factors the amount of water required
to grow grains for animals, provide drinking water for livestock, clean the
farming facilities, as well as process the dead bodies, each person consumes
2,500 gallons of water per day in the United States. Contrarily, one person whose diet consists of
plant material ingests merely 300 gallons per day.
Effects on Water Supply: Output
In addition to the
water required from the input of livestock production, the output of meat
production, in terms of waste by-products, is even more disturbing. Because of the separation of animals and
crops, as well as the high rate of livestock production, manure cannot always be used to fertilize crops. The traditional harmonious cycle is thwarted, and instead, many crops are fertilized with
fossil fuels, while manure is crammed into concrete or earth pits, called
“lagoons.” Due to the excessive population of animals at
factory-farms, the quantity of waste is too great for
the facility to handle with proper environmental concern. For example, from 1978 to 1992, the number of
hogs in the United States
grew 134 percent. This proves to be a
significant problem, as livestock create massive amounts of waste, and
facilities with many animals are more likely to have difficulty correctly
handling this manure. Each week, 2,000
pigs generate 27 tons of manure and 32 tons of urine; sixty thousand chickens
create 80 tons of manure per week. In
total, livestock in the United States
produce 2 billion tons of manure per year, which, to put it into perspective,
is 10 times the waste produced by humans. Globally, this amounts to 13 billion tons of
manure annually.
In addition, these
waste warehouses are often poorly constructed, and manure leaks or spills from
these confinements into lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater. A study conducted by the North
Carolina State University
determined that leakage of animal waste occurred in 50 percent of the lagoons
constructed before 1993 when government regulations did not require clay liners
in waste lagoons. Even since this law
attempting environmental protection was enacted, waste
leakage has remained an abundant problem.
From 1995 to 1996, 6 major lagoon spills from hog and poultry facilities
were recorded in North Carolina
alone. In addition, some farms have
open-air lagoons, which allow for ammonia from urine to evaporate into the
air. Besides contributing to air
pollution, this causes water-quality concerns, as the ammonia returns to the
earth as rain. To further aggravate the problem, some
farmers bypass the waste storage process, and dump manure directly into bodies
of water. State inspections following
the spills in 1995 and 1996 found that 122 farmers were illegally dumping
thousands of gallons of manure into water sources.
Manure is stored
in these lagoons until it exceeds the limit of the container, at which point it
is sometimes sprayed or spread on nearby land as fertilizer
for crops. However, there is
often too much waste to be discarded, and consequently, fields are inundated
with too much manure for the acreage.
This results in further waste runoff into streams and rivers, as rain washes away the unabsorbed fertilizer.
This system of
manure storage and application is detrimental to the natural environment. A study conducted by the Union of Concerned
Scientists
determined that industrial production of beef, poultry and pork is second only
to cars as the most environmentally degrading consumer product. For this research, the scientists compared
consumer spending with its environmental effects in 4
different categories: global warming,
air and water pollution, and alteration of natural habitats. They determined that due to the government’s
relative lack of regulation of animal feces (particularly in comparison to the
strict rules regarding human waste), 20 percent of common water pollution can be linked to meat production. This is compared to
only 6 percent of water pollution attributed to vehicle use, 3 percent for
fruit, vegetable and grain production, and 11 percent from household water and
sewage. Consequently, they noted, beef
is 17 times more damaging to the environment than the production necessary to
generate an equal portion of pasta.
The feces of
factory-farmed animals contain high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous as well
as antibiotics, growth hormones and ammonia.
This is due to the fact that unlike their
grass-fed counterparts, livestock in factories are fed high protein diets of
grain along with additives in order to bulk up muscle in as little time as
possible. However, their bodies are
incapable of digesting such excessive sources of nutrients, and the undigested
material gets excreted in their manure. When this nitrogen,
phosphorous, and metal-rich manure leaks into bodies of water, the entire
ecosystem of the lake, river or stream is adversely affected. The body of water undergoes eutrophication, anorexia, and microbial growth, resulting
in algal blooms such as Pfiesteria piscicida and Cryptosporidium.
The consequence of these polluted waters is massive fish kills, as natural
chemical reactions trying to neutralize the nitrates and phosphates consume
large amounts of oxygen, leaving fish to die of suffocation.
Sadly, there are
many examples of this degradation to the aquatic environment resulting from
manure contamination. On June 21st,
1995, heavy rains in North Carolina
caused 25 million gallons of waste
to burst out of the 8-acre lagoon of a factory farm. The waste poured knee-deep across a highway
for two hours, and washed out cotton and tobacco fields en route to the New
River into which it emptied its toxic sludge. Consequently, all life in the river in a
17-mile segment was killed. During that summer of 1995, 10 million fish
were recorded dead in the rivers of North Carolina,
while 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands were closed to fisherman
for shellfish harvesting. Biologists
were disconcerted by the possibility that if the toxic waste in the rivers
reached the Albermarle and Pamlico sounds, the fish
population would be further endangered, as these bodies are home to one half of
the entire U.S. East coast’s nurseries for young fish.
The problem has
become so severe that even local governments are recognizing the detrimental
effects that waste leakage has on its land.
For example, the government of Tulsa, Oklahoma
brought a lawsuit against 6 poultry processors
in Decatur, Arkansas,
suing for damages in order to clean up the pollution caused by chicken effluent
in the city’s water supply. Lakes Eucha and Spavinaw, which both
provide drinking water for Tulsa,
suffered from algae blooms and strong odors.
Tulsa blamed the chicken
processors, as they claimed that the chicken litter, used on fields as
fertilizer, was washing into lakes and causing environmental problems. They also requested an injunction to halt
further pollution from poultry operations.
Water pollution
resulting from livestock waste is by no means unique to the United
States.
The developing world is now responsible for more than half of the
world’s meat consumption and production.
Between 1980 and 2004, global meat production almost doubled, which is
largely due to the augmentation of meat consumption in developing countries, in
which production has increased at an average of 5 percent each year. Asia, in particular,
has become a major mass-producer of meat, due to its significant economic and
population growths. It has adopted
western factory-farming practices, and thus 80 percent of the increase in
livestock production since 1990 can be attributed to
large industrialized livestock facilities.
East Asia now possesses one
half of the world’s total population of hogs and one third of the world’s
poultry. The abundance of nitrates and
phosphates from animal manure is causing severe pollution problems. Scientists have found that 26 percent of the
soil in East Asia is overburdened
by nutrients. The South China Sea is particularly in
danger of destruction due to factory-farming practices occurring near its
coast. The South China Sea
is one of the most biologically diverse bodies of water, and contains three
considerable habitats to flora and fauna—coral reefs, mangroves and sea
grasses. It boasts 45 mangroves of the
worldwide total of 51, and contains 20 of the 50 sea
grass species known to man. However, livestock production has contributed
significantly to the water pollution in the South China Sea,
and has resulted in red tides and algae blooms, which in 1998 killed 80 percent
of the fish in 100 square kilometers of the sea.
Effect on Human Health
The by-products of
factory farming wreak havoc on human health as well. Effluent, either leaked from lagoons or
applied to fields, often seeps into ground water, which serves as the drinking
water for many citizens, especially in rural areas where people rely on wells.
These feces are hazardous to human health, as they often contain parasites,
bacteria and viruses, in particular E.Coli,
Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, salmonella, avian botulism and cholera. Scientists have found that approximately 25
percent of the beef cattle at feedlots produce manure containing the E.Coli bacteria. In
1994, a study found that 20 percent of wells in Iowa
and Missouri were
contaminated with E.Coli, which can cause
kidney failure and even death. In 2000,
2,321 people became sick and 7 died from drinking
municipal water, which contained E.Coli and
Campylobacter. It was determined that
these pathogens in the water had originated from manure from a local CAFO. Furthermore, high concentrations of nitrates
in well water can lead to methemoglobinemia, or “blue
baby syndrome” which can be fatal for infants.
Currently 2 million households, which translates
into 40,000 babies, consume water that contains nitrate levels that are higher
than the safety threshold set by the EPA.
In October and December of 1995, state officials blamed hog farms for
contamination of private wells in Robeson County of North Carolina by nitrates. Consumption of nitrates in the water supply has also been linked to cancer and diabetes. For example, in England,
children drinking water containing nitrates were shown
to have a 15 percent increased chance of developing diabetes. In addition, the excessive administration of
antibiotics to farm animals
is very dangerous to the human population, as they are rendered useless as
bacteria are able to build up an immunity.
Response by the United States
Despite the
severity of this crisis to human health and the environment, few effective
measures have been taken to ameliorate the
situation. The waste produced by animal
production facilities is highly unregulated, especially compared to the
polluting practices of other industries.
Factory farms are almost entirely excused from
the major environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup and Liability Act. In the United
States, this is largely due to the close ties
between politicians and corporate livestock production. For example, in 1994, state legislators from North
Carolina received donations from hog companies
totaling $92,388. This was double the
donation received from the textile industry as well as organized labor. To make matters worse, former Senator Wendell
Murphy, who is currently the nation’s biggest pig producer, supported the hog
industry throughout his stint as a civil servant. As the vice chairman
of the Agriculture Committee, he consistently voted for legislation that would
thwart attempts to create environmental and zoning regulations for factory
farms.
In addition,
attempts to regulate the release of effluents from factory farms prove
futile. The Code of
Federal Regulations states quite clearly that waste from animals should be
properly managed: In Subpart F, “Specifications for the Humane Handling Care,
Treatment and Transportation of Warmblooded Animals”
part D entitled “waste disposal” declares, “The disposal facilities and any
disposal of animal and food wastes, bedding, dead animals, trash, and debris
shall comply with applicable Federal, state, and local laws and regulations
relating to pollution control or the protection of the environment.” Likewise, for animals housed in indoor facilities,
section D entitled “drainage” states, “The method of drainage shall comply with
applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to pollution
control or the protection of the environment.” However, despite the government’s expressed
dedication to the protection of the environment outlined in the Federal Code,
adherence to these standards is rarely realized. States are weary to enforce strict rules due
to pressure from lobbying and protesting from farmers. Local governments, which witness the
destruction of the environment and human health due to water pollution, are
often eager to take action against CAFOs. However, their efforts are
stymied by state governments, who overturn their attempts at zoning and
environmental regulations through state courts or preemptive legislation. Furthermore, all 50 states have
“right-to-farm” laws, which remove the possibility of nuisance liability from
farming operations.
In 2001
the EPA reformed 2 existing CAFO permits in order to curb the increasing
problem of water pollution and air pollution caused by manure handling at
farming facilities. The two permits, The
National Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) and the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) were both established in
the 1970s, but had proven to be largely unsuccessful. These changes specified that individual
permits must be acquired for large CAFOs
in order to release any waste; they also established a zero-discharge mandate
for pig and poultry CAFOs. In addition, the EPA stated that
environmental management systems are to be developed,
as well as the strict regulation of farmer-owned fertilizer application
areas. The EPA also ordered that farms
must create Nutrient Management Plans (NMP), which aim
to direct manure to croplands in a such a way to prevent runoff into rivers and
streams. In addition, the EPA
specified that anyone acquiring manure from a CAFO must sign a statement
pledging to apply the fertilizer in compliance with the nutrient-management
plan.
However, the CAFO
plan proposed by the EPA is not as promising as it initially appeared, and
demonstrates the weakness of law governing livestock-industry pollution. “The
Federal Regulations governing CAFO pollution have been
some of the least enforced, least effective national standards ever.”
For instance, the EPA plan excludes many smaller livestock processing
facilities from regulations regarding waste discharge. The direst problem with the proposal is that
the EPA gives individual states full sovereignty in administering and enforcing
the NPDES permits, which will most likely render the plan impotent, based on
the dismal record that states have previously had in regulating farming
facilities. This attempt by the EPA
failed to take sufficient measures to crack down on CAFOs
and other factory farming facilities.
This is evidenced by the fact that only 2,500
of the 12,000 eligible CAFOs have obtained these
NPDES permits.
Response of the International Community: EU and WTO
However, the
international community has recently expressed concern over the growing impact
that modern agricultural practices have on the environment, especially in
developing countries. The European
Union, in particular, is strongly in favor of international awareness of these
issues, and demands discernable control over the agricultural market in terms
of environmental regulations. In 1991,
the Council of the European Union initiated Directive 91/676/EEC “Concerning
the Protection of Waters Against Pollution Caused by
Nitrates from Agricultural Sources.” It
stipulated that Member States must take action to control nitrate levels in
bodies of water through compliance with standards and initiatives established
by the EU Commission. In
recognition that many states possessed water pollution problems that affected
their own environment, as well as the environments of other states with shared
bodies of water, the Directive created a mandate that Member States must
identify “vulnerable zones,” which are areas susceptible to drainage into
bodies of water, and must initiate action programs within four years in order
to mitigate run-off and leakage of nitrates from livestock production. Furthermore, Member States are required to
regularly monitor the nitrate-levels of bodies of water, and periodically
submit reports to the Commission outlining their progress towards the reduction
of water pollution. The Directive also
called for Member States to establish codes of sound agricultural practice that
farmers may follow voluntarily, as well as a program to train and educate
farmers in order to comply with this code of good conduct. In addition, the Commission established a
Committee, which would be responsible for the execution of the Directive. The
Directive sets an acceptable standard for nitrate concentration in groundwater
as 50 mg/l and also specifies that each hectare of
cropland may only receive manure containing 170 kg of nitrate per year.
Following reports from Member States, the Commission would be responsible for providing
information to the European Parliament and to the Council within six months.
Although initially
the Member States were slow to comply with the Directive, the Commission report
of July 2002 found that all the Member States had formulated monitoring
systems, devised a code of good agricultural practice, and outlined the
vulnerable zones. Monitoring programs had revealed that 20
percent of the groundwater and 40 percent of lakes and rivers in the EU
possessed concentrated nitrate levels exceeding the acceptable standards. The report also determined that the results
of the Directive were encouraging, as nitrate pollution in some areas of the EU
was beginning to diminish.
Furthermore, in
1992, the EU reformed its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) through Regulation
92/2078. Traditionally under CAP, the EU had subsidized the milk and beef
industry, by providing price support to those farms that produced the highest
number of livestock. The reforms were undertaken
due to excessive over-production and environmental destruction caused by the
endorsement of concentrated livestock production. These reforms were in accordance with
WTO/GATT policies, as they represented a shift from production-increasing subsidies,
to payment towards environmental and social goods. The EU is working on further reforms through
a draft proposal entitled Agenda 2000, which would support rural development,
as well as provide extended subsidies for increased acreage per farm, rather
than higher number of livestock.
In addition, the European Union warned that it
would not participate in agricultural talks in the 2001 WTO trade negotiations
in Doha, Qatar
if environmental issues were excluded in the
agenda. Peter Carl, the Director-General
for trade in the European Commission, expressed concern over the draft agenda
constructed by Stuart Harbinson, the chairman of the WTO’s General
Council. “Trade and the environment, or
the omission of it, is indeed a deal-breaker,” Carl cautioned. However, developing countries did not favor
the inclusion of environmental issues in the WTO agenda, as they felt that
their own interests would be compromised under such
regulations, as the European Union would prosper from standards such as the
precautionary principle, eco-labeling, food safety and animal welfare. “We are not prepared to accept any
negotiations on any aspect of the environment since we are convinced that the
existing rules are adequate to protect all legitimate environmental concerns,”
asserted the representative from Sri Lanka,
whose position was shared by India.
This explicitly demonstrates the divide that exists between the North and South
in terms of concerns for the environment.
While the European Union desires to address the issue on an
international forum, other states lacking the infrastructure to support such
environmental standards are weary to control their farming practices because of
supposed economic harm. Factory farming, like so many other industrial practices, has been
adopted by developing countries.
Unlike the wealthy countries that can theoretically afford to impose
environmental regulations,
these developing countries lack the financial resources and economy to be
concerned over the environment, and therefore view the ecological interests of
Western countries as a way to gain further economic advantage over poorer
countries.
The trade
liberalization initiated in the Uruguay Round (UR) of the WTO from 1986 to 1994
indirectly addressed some of the concerns of pollution caused by livestock manure. The UR Agricultural Agreement stipulated
reforms that would be phased in during a 6-year period
for developed countries, and 10 years for developing countries. The Agreement called for a 36 percent
reduction in subsidy expenditures, a 36 percent reduction in tariffs, and a 21
percent reduction in subsidized export volumes.
A study published in the New Zealand Economic Papers hypothesized the
effects of the UR Agreement on livestock production, particularly pertaining to
nitrogen waste output. The study
projected that beef production in Japan,
Korea and Southeast
Asia would fall 4 percent, as well as diminish by 10 percent in
the EU, as a result of the UR
reforms, but would augment 1 to 5 percent in all other regions. In terms of nitrogen waste, the study
predicts that China
will be most affected by pollution from increased
livestock production; however, this is a consequence of the increase in meat
demand, rather than a result of the reforms imposed by the UR. However, in South America
and New Zealand,
the UR trade liberalization does
directly contribute to livestock pollution, as it encourages the expansion of
the beef industry in these regions. In New
Zealand, in particular, the UR
reforms are projected to increase nitrogen waste from
the livestock industry by 7 and a half percent.
Conversely, in the EU the study finds that there will be a 10 percent
reduction in nitrogen waste, due to the downsizing of the livestock industry
that will occur as a result of the trade
liberalization. Based on these findings,
the study concluded that nitrogen waste will not diminish under the reforms of
the UR trade agreement, but rather
will shift farm production from areas of concentrated livestock facilities in
the EU, for example, to other regions in South America
and New Zealand,
keeping the aggregate level of global waste constant. Moreover, the trade liberalization will not
be able to curb the growing livestock industry in China,
caused by exponential economy growth. Therefore, the authors suggest the implementation
of environmental policies rather than the utilization of trade policies in
order to reduce pollution caused by nitrogen waste.
However, the study postulates that due to this shift in production from highly populated areas in Japan, Southeast Asia and Europe to New Zealand and South America, meat production will occur in regions with less density of people. This would minimize the impact of nitrogen waste on human health, but would not prevent environmental degradation. Lakes, streams and rivers can be adversely affected by nitrogen waste, even if meat production plants are located in less populated areas. In addition, the authors assume that the development of better technology in this sector will augment the rate of productivity as, “the same marketable outputs can be produced from a smaller number
of livestock. Since we assume N-waste output is determined by livestock numbers, the consequent technology effect will lessen environmental damage.” However, the current industrialized farming system, which is economically more efficient and productive than the old fashioned system, has been the catalyst for the overabundance of pollutants from excess animal waste. Therefore, increased productivity through new technology does not appear to be an effective way of alleviating environmental damage.
Response of the International Community: UN
However, the
United Nations under the directive of the Food and Agriculture Organization has
recognized the growing environmental degradation in developing countries due to
the adoption of industrial livestock production practices. The governments of these countries have done
next to nothing to regulate the waste produced by these massive farming
operations, as many lack the infrastructure or the incentive to do so. The Chinese government, in particular, has been criticized for putting economic gain at the
forefront of its policies, regardless of the environmental consequences. Therefore, as the population and wealth of
these developing countries burgeon under vast economic growth, the demand for
meat increases, which creates the incentive for such large-scale industrial
practices. However, despite growth in
urban regions, rural areas remain rather underdeveloped, and lack the
infrastructure to sustain such resource-exhaustive facilities. In particular, roads, electrical and
communication systems, and handling facilities remain primitive in the agrarian
regions, which prevent transportation of meat to the consumer market in
cities. Therefore, CAFOs
are built around metropolitan areas. Governments further exacerbate the problem by
providing subsidies for high-energy animal feeds, which is
indigestible and therefore is manifested in waste products high in nitrates,
phosphates, and heavy metals, as well as subsidizing chemical fertilizers,
which discourages the recycling of manure as fertilizer for crops. Developing countries also lack policy
instruments, coordination between agencies, and effective law enforcement. The few regulations in existence do not employ
nutrient recycling procedures. Overall,
the existing system encourages the construction of large livestock production
facilities located in urban areas.
However, this is particularly injurious to both the environment and
human health as water supplies for a city become contaminated
with toxins from animal waste.
Furthermore, many urban areas in developing countries are
situated near the coast, allowing runoff from factory farms to damage
the fragile marine ecosystems. For
example, in Asia, urban areas are
situated near the coast of the East and South
China Seas.
Due to this rising problem, the Animal Production
and Health Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization have created a
program entitled the Livestock, Environment and Development initiative, or
LEAD. The program’s mission statement is
to:
“Target[s] the
protection and enhancement of natural resources as affected by livestock
production while alleviating poverty. Earlier work of LEAD has identified, at a
global scale, the consequences of increased pressure on grazing and mixed
farming systems and the dangers of the shift to industrial modes of
production. It has highlighted the close
and complex interaction between government policies and the environmental
impact of livestock production. It has also identified a large number of technologies which are available to mitigate the negative
effects in all different production modes, provided the appropriate policy
framework is in place. Subsequently, the initiative mobilized funding for critical
follow-up needs.
Consequently,
LEAD has been working on several pilot schemes, which attempt to address this
growing problem of industrialized livestock production by providing financial
and technical support to developing countries, particularly China,
Vietnam, Thailand,
and Mexico. LEAD’s goal is to
alleviate the stress on the environment from factory farming by adopting the
concept of “Area-wide Integration” in which farming practices return to the
land, and livestock production is spread out in rural regions. To accomplish this goal, LEAD strives to
provide tools and technology to the stakeholders in the livestock industry, as
well as to collaborate with governments, members of the private sector, and
nongovernmental organizations dedicated to environmental protection and
livestock development in order to create policies which
would protect the environment.
LEAD’s primary objective to develop “Area-wide Integration”
(AWI) in developing countries is based on the concept that traditional farming
practices are less harmful to the environment, as they rely on the natural
cycle in which animals graze on the land while simultaneously fertilizing it
with manure. In order to accomplish AWI,
LEAD intends to develop technologies such as water management and manure
recycling, but more importantly, create policy instruments, such as the
eradication of subsidies on imported concentrates, use of zoning, and
development of more effective environmental regulations. Furthermore, AWI places much of the responsibility
of implementing these changes on the governments on the municipal and national
level. First, the AWI encourages
governments to employ the “polluter pays” principle so that the livestock
industry is forced to internalize the cost of
environmental degradation. This is expected to lessen the incentives to cultivate such
large-scale farms, and increase the chances of success for farms adhering to
AWI. LEAD also encourages municipal
governments to support rural livestock production projects rather than
industrial practices, so that these local regions are equipped with adequate
infrastructure. On a national level, LEAD demands the development and
enforcement of strict environmental policies, so that farms adhering to AWI are given the opportunity to compete with industrialized
livestock methods. Specifically, LEAD
calls for national governments to further the effort of creating sound
infrastructure in rural regions, as well as investing in R and D for technology,
which would ensure high production rates at these AWI farms. Furthermore, LEAD recommends the use of
taxation in order to limit the advantage that CAFOs
currently have in these industrializing countries, as well as the reversal of
the subsidy system so that farms adhering to the AWI program, rather than to
the CAFO structure, are compensated by the
government. In Thailand,
for example, high taxes were imposed on chicken
production plants that were within 100 kilometers of Bankok,
whereas farmers outside this perimeter were tax-exempt. This proved to be very effective at
discouraging urban farming facilities. LEAD also encourages governments to utilize
zoning in order to eradicate the prevalence of factory farms in urban
areas.
LEAD
initiatives are slowly gaining ground in their battle against industrialized
livestock pollution. One
pilot scheme entitled the Livestock Waste Management in East Asia Project
(LWMEAP) that targets Thailand, Vietnam and China, was granted $700,000 by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF)
in order to fund the Project Preparation and Development Facility (PDF-B). Through this project, LEAD works with
governments of these affected countries in order to develop policies that
address the issue. At the national
level, LEAD encourages inter-agency cooperation between the departments of
agriculture, environment, economy and public health, in the creation of
environmental regulations. LEAD also
recommends that national governments conduct special planning analysis so that
future livestock facilities will be less damaging to the environment,
will have better manure storage facilities, and will be more capable of
nutrient recycling.
In
September of 2003, LEAD hosted a workshop in Bangkok
in connection with the LWMEAP initiative, which sought to address the
environmental concerns of the livestock industry. Representatives from Thailand,
Vietnam, and China
were in attendance, as well as members of the GEF, the Ministries of
Agriculture and Finance, the World Bank, and the FAO. During the meeting, the parties agreed upon
the timeframe of 2004 for the submission of a project brief, and
also consented to a design for the institutional arrangement of the
PDF-B. In addition,
the workshop outlined the phases which would be carried out by LEAD, such as:
identifying stakeholders; analyzing geographical regions in terms of the best
locations for livestock production; exploring methods of manure management as
well as researching new technologies to address waste processing; evaluating
the institutional capabilities of Thailand, Vietnam and China in developing and
enforcing environmental regulations; and designing an effective monitoring and
evaluation plan.
LEAD
developed a Nutrient Balance Calculation Program,
which it intends to incorporate into all of its pilot
project plans. This Excel based balance
sheet is responsible for monitoring the nutrients that go in and out of
livestock farms. It calculates the
nutrient excretion of livestock, as well as comparing the content of nutrients
and heavy metals in manure to the demand and uptake of nutrients in crop
production. In other words, the balance
sheet ensures that the nutrients contained in animal waste are
produced at a rate that equals, rather than exceeds, the nutrients that
can be applied to the land as fertilizer.
This prevents degradation of water supply caused by the overabundance of
nitrates, phosphates and heavy metals.
LEAD intends for the utilization of the Nutrient Balance Calculation
Program to be combined with governmental incentives for farms that balance
nutrients, as well as punitive measures for those that don’t
comply.
LEAD
is also involved in researching the effect of livestock production on water
supply, particularly in dry lands of Africa, as the
total amount of water needed for livestock production is currently unknown. LEAD posited that under the current system of
water use, “degradation of water by livestock may exceed total amount used.” Therefore, LEAD initiated a study in order to
improve the ratio of livestock to water productivity and increase water-use
efficiency for food production in river basins, specifically the Nile
basin. Through partnership with the
Animal Agriculture Research Network, Ethiopian Agricultural Research
Organization, International Water Management Institute, and others, the study
looked at the relationship between animal production and water with four
different types of livestock systems in the drylands
of Africa: rainfed pastoral, rainfed mixed crop, peri-urban,
and large-scale irrigation. In order to develop
policies to address water shortages, LEAD extracted information through
basin-wide mapping, spatial modeling and descriptions of livestock-water
“hotspots.” Through this research, LEAD
intends to train graduate students in water management, as well as creating a
“toolbox” of proven methods of improving the livestock-water ratio. Furthermore, it endeavors to educate
communities in water basin regions on how to better utilize water in livestock
production through improved techniques and technology so that sufficient water
supply is left for crop production, human needs, and environmental
preservation.
Although
LEAD pilot schemes have been relatively small and experimental in design, they
can boast some initial successes. In Thailand,
LEAD initiatives have resulted in the development of public interest in these
issues, which has instigated the demand for new regulations by the Thai
government. Moreover, in China,
the provincial government has adopted some of the policies suggested by
LEAD. While LEAD is focusing
predominantly on livestock industrialization in Asia,
due to the imminent threat to the South and East
China Seas,
it intends to expand its programs to Latin American countries.
Recommendations
Ideally, the best
way of resolving this critical environmental issue is to revert
back to traditional farming practices that are self-sustainable. The current industrial system of factory
farming is cost-efficient on a purely economic scale; however, the cheap cost
of meat created by mass-scale production does not account for the costs to the
environment. Therefore, if one were to
internalize the costs of damage to the fishing industry from fish kills or
health-care costs from pathogens or antibiotics in the water, industrialized
meat production would prove far less cost-effective. Smaller, land-based livestock facilities are
sustainable and harmonized with nature, thereby limiting conflict with the
environment. This type of farm still
does exist and is targeted to the market of consumers
who are concerned about the origins of their food. For example, Joe Saladan
has a farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia that raises chickens, cows,
turkeys and pigs. He devised an
ecologically efficient system of land use, in which cows are
rotated from one pasture to another after a few days. Once the cows are gone, he brings in the “egg
mobile” which is essentially a chicken coup.
The chickens roam the pasture, eating grass and grubs from the cow
manure, while simultaneously spreading the manure and thereby fertilizing the
field. After a few weeks, Mr. Saladan reintroduces the cattle into the pasture, as the
grass has been replenished, and the fly larva has been
reduced. This organization is beneficial
to the environment, as it is modeled after nature, in
which birds and grazing animals have a symbiotic relationship. Under this system, the soil quality was far
superior by the end of the year than before fertilization. A farm could theoretically exploit the
improved soil by growing crops the year after the cows’ habitation, so that the
cycle would extend to rotation of livestock and produce. Furthermore, this closed nutrient loop would
ensure that manure would not exceed absorption capabilities of the soil,
thereby preventing nutrient seepage into groundwater and runoff into bodies of
water. In addition, animals living off
the land tend to be healthier than those crammed indoors,
which would eliminate the over-administration of antibiotics and other harmful
drugs. This would prove to be safer for
both humans and aquatic ecosystems.
A
land-based approach to livestock production that approaches this system is a
far better solution to the problem than the many “quick-fixes” that have been
proposed by different parties, particularly the livestock industry. These suggestions, which often utilize new
forms of technology, do not attempt to regulate the source of the pollution,
but rather conceal it so that it is less noticeable to the public. In order to curb the pollution caused by factory
farming, these parties contend that agricultural engineers should work to
develop technology and architectural modifications. “Technology and regulations can work together
to ensure the environment is protected.” For example, they posit a “water curtain”
which would reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air on the downwind
side of a cattle feedyard, and a “Phosphorous Index”
which would evaluate the effect of phosphorous on surface water. Advocates of these innovations claim that
“Even if a field has high phosphorous levels, if there is no way for the
phosphorous to move onto surface water, then the concern for that field is
minimal to nonexistent.”
Therefore,
despite the necessity of a land-based sustainable system, both the private and
the public sector are hesitant to reform the industry, which is
evidenced by the preponderance of factory farms, especially in the
developing world where meat has become a sought-after commodity. As long as governments continue to subsidize
the industrialized livestock complex, as well as the corn industry that feeds
these animals,
consumers will have the impression that meat is inexpensive, and will never
condone a rise in price. However, if
local governments, who cope with the damage to human health and the
environment, are able to persuade national governments to discourage
industrialized meat practices through zoning, subsidies and taxes, the
environment will undergo improvement.
Furthermore, governments must prioritize the enforcement of environmental
regulations, such as the EPA’s permit programs.
This is an arduous task, because, as previously mentioned, the meat
conglomerate is highly influential over the government, through tremendous
lobbying pressure, and personal ties between politicians and the industry. Since the 1990 elections in the United
States, for example, cattle and livestock
interests have donated $22 million to political campaigns.
Because
the government has proved unsuccessful at addressing these environmental concerns,
perhaps the most effective way of curbing pollution from factory farms is
through “reflexive laws.” Reflexive laws
rely on consumers, workers, shareholders, and general citizens to pressure
businesses to reduce pollution. Through
disclosure of information to the public, the power of the market, as opposed to
the government, instills punitive damage upon polluting corporations through
boycotting, protesting, and selling of stock.
Through this process of shaming and loss of profits, the company internally
reforms its practices so that they adhere to environmental standards. Subsequently, the company enforces an
“efficient level of pollution—the point at which the market-driven costs of
being a heavy polluter equal the costs of installing cleaner technology or
otherwise reducing pollution—[which] might be lower than would be required by a
command-and-control system.” Reflexive laws can be successful because of
three factors: they provide information
in a clear, accessible way; they provide incentives for companies to alter
their polluting habits; and they shift the financial and bureaucratic burden of
collecting information, enforcing regulations and setting risk levels from the
government to the corporation. Reflexive
laws could be utilized in the struggle to curb
pollution caused by CAFOs through mandatory data
reports, hazard warnings, and eco-labeling.
For mandatory data reporting, a CAFO Release Inventory (CRI) could be devised, which would require each firm to compile
detailed information about the emissions that its facility releases into the
air, water and soil. Furthermore,
companies would be inclined to reduce their emissions, as the competition from
companies ranking lower in pollution output would pressure them into better
environmental compliance. This
information would also be highly accessible to the media, so that the public
could have further knowledge of brands to avoid. Hazard warnings are another reflexive law
measure; they would require companies to mail a notice to citizens in a
watershed area when a CAFO had emitted a pollutant or applied manure to a field
in an amount that is higher than the standard.
Rather than targeting neighbors in close proximity to the CAFO, this
program would increase effectiveness by requiring notification to all citizens
who may be directly or indirectly affected by the
pollution. The last recommendation is
for a certification regime in which farms can apply for certification from a
non-profit or government sponsored agency.
This certification can be for the farm facility itself, or more
probably, for the right to eco-label the product once it has entered the
consumer market. However, this
certification process is most effective as a second stage initiative, because
by first initiating mandatory data reports and hazard warnings, the public is alerted and educated about the issue, and therefore has
incentive to purchase certified products.
Due to the success of reflexive law in other industries, such as with
the Toxic Release Inventory (a section of the Community Right-to-Know Act), as
well as the USDA’s organic label, it seems as though public pressure could
encourage adherence to environmental standards in the meat industry. Furthermore, it could be potentially enticing
to conservative governments, which shirk away from direct governmental
regulations, and prefer to rely on market forces.
The
international community, particularly the EU and the UN, are to be commended for their increased awareness of environmental
concerns caused by the livestock sector.
The FAO’s LEAD initiative has taken a step in
the right direction, as it recognizes the inherent flaw in the factory farming
system, and is addressing the root of the problem through its AWI program. However, the LEAD program is still in its infancy,
and is provided with few resources with which to carry
out research and pilot schemes. The
$700,000 grant that the GEF provided for a LEAD initiative is miniscule when
one considers the gravity and the scope of the problem. Furthermore, LEAD has no authority to impose
any of its policies on collaborating governments; therefore, countries are free
to choose the suggestions they wish to adopt, while disregarding the rest.
Therefore,
in the near future, the international community must devise an international
treaty that would address the hazards both to the environment and to human
health caused by factory farming.
Through this treaty, uniform, global standards must be created for environmentally-safe livestock production. This can be conducted
under the guise of “sustainable development,” which has been recently in vogue
in international environmental law, as current industrialized farming practices
are unsustainable in terms of depletion and pollution of freshwater
sources. For example, this treaty must
outline acceptable levels of waste discharge from CAFOs,
as well as establish stricter standards for manure management and water
usage. This treaty could
be modeled after the successful Council Directive 91/676/EEC of the EU,
which mandated the reduction of nitrate pollution from the livestock industry
by Member States and established an enforcement Committee. Furthermore, the
international community must admit to the inherent flaw of the industrialized
livestock system, and therefore impose measures to provide advantages to farms
that adhere to the AWI program. Such
measures include the “polluter pays principle,” so that factory farms are forced to clean up environmental damage, as well as
incentives such as taxation, subsidies and zoning regulations. Furthermore, compliance with this
international treaty could be ensured through import
restrictions on countries whose livestock practices do not conform to
international standards, modeled after the current Montreal Protocol, which
penalizes non-complying or non-party states through trade barriers. In an effort to conform to the WTO’s principle of trade liberalization, the WTO, through
its Committee on Trade and Environment,
could incorporate condemnation of polluting practices into its agendas so that
it is more accepting of environmental regulations. Furthermore, this international treaty should
create an intergovernmental organization (IGO) that would serve as an
implementing, monitoring and enforcing body of the law. In addition, this IGO would provide education
and assistance to farmers about livestock production techniques that are cost
effective yet environmentally sound, specifically targeting the agricultural
sector of developing countries who lack the financial
resources to overhaul their current systems.
In addition, this governing IGO should employ Research and Development
in order to create technology that improves production to meet the growing meat
demand, while still employing land-based, self-sustaining farming techniques.
Unfortunately,
it seems that an initiative of this magnitude would only be
introduced into the international community through increased public
awareness and massive environmental destruction. At this moment, it is apparent that neither
of these criteria is fully met; however, with
substantial damages to rivers and lakes in North Carolina,
and to the South and East China
Seas, as well as the increasing
affect on human health, perhaps the stage is set for some international
convention on this issue. Until then,
NGOs and initiatives such as LEAD can continue to inform the public and put
pressure on the livestock industry and the government. The more attention this issue receives by
citizens, and the more their outrage influences the practices of the private
sector as well as the policies of the public sector, the sooner the
international community will address this issue on a global scale.
Bibliography
Baker, Beth. "New national plan proposed to control pollution of water by
livestock waste." BioScience 48.12 (Dec. 1998): 996. Expanded Academic
ASAP. Providence Public Library. 8 Mar. 2006
<http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
Bignal, Eric M. "Using an ecological understanding of farmland to reconcile
nature conservation requirements, EU agriculture policy and world trade
agreements." Journal of Applied Ecology (1998): 949-954. Jstor. 2 May 2006
<http://jstor.org>.
Braunig, Warren A. "Reflexive Law Solutions for Factory Farm Pollution." New
York University Law Review (Nov. 2005). EBSO Host. 15 Apr. 2006
<http://http://www.library.georgetown.edu/>.
Coats, C. David. Old McDonald's Factory Farm. New York, NY: Continuum , 1989.
Code of Federal Regulations. 1 Jan. 2005. Chapter 9: Animals and Animal Products. Stat.
3.126, 3.125.
Council Directive 91/676/EEC Concerning the Protection of Waters Against
Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources. 12 Dec. 1991.
FAO Corporate Document Repository. Office of Director-General. 3 May
2006 <http://fao.org>.
Department of Agriculture. 1989 Yearbook of Agriculture: Farm Management: How to
Achieve your Farm Business Goals. N.p.: n.p., 1989. Forward by Clayton
Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture
"Environment 'must play role' in WTO farm talks." Agra Europe (Oct. 2001).
Expanded Academic ASAP. Providence Public Library. 4 Mar. 2006
<http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
European Union Summaries of Legislation. Pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources. 28 June 2005. 3 May 2006 <http://http://
europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28013.htm>.
FAO. Livestock Policy Brief '02: Pollution from Industrialized Livestock
Production . 2002. 21 Apr. 2006 <http://www.fao.org>.
Food Revolution. 7 Mar. 2006 <http://www.foodrevolution.org/
grassfedbeef.htm>.
Justice, Glen. "For Cattle Industry, a Swift Response Years in the Making."
New York Times 1 Jan. 2004. 1 May 2006 <http://http://
www.yuricareport.com/Health_Issues/
CattleIndustryLobbyPlanResponseMadCow.html>.
Lacy, Peter M. "Addressing water pollution from livestock grazing after O.N.D.A
vs. Dombeck: Legal stragegies under the Clean Water Act." Environmental Law
30.3 (Summer 2000). Extended Academic ASAP. Providence Public Library. 8
Mar. 2006 <http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
"LEAD approach to addressing Livestock's role in dryland management." LEAD
Virtual Research and Development Centre . LEAD. 2 Apr. 2006
<http://http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/frame.htm>.
"LEAD approach to addressing Land, water and air pollution by industrial livestock
production: Concept of Area-Wide Integration.” LEAD Virtual Research and
Development Centre . LEAD. 2 Apr. 2006
<http://http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/frame.htm>.
"LEAD approach to addressing Land, water and air pollution by industrial livestock
production: Waste Management of Intensive Livestock Prodcution.” LEAD
Virtual Research and Development Centre . LEAD. 2 Apr. 2006
<http://http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/frame.htm>.
"LEAD approach to addressing Land, water and air pollution by industrial livestock
production." LEAD Virtual Research and Development Centre . LEAD. 2 Apr. 2006
<http://http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/frame.htm>.
"LEAD approach to addressing Land, water and air pollution by industrial livestock
production: Protecting the environment from the impact of the growing
industrialization of livestock production in East Asia." LEAD Virtual Research and
Development Centre . LEAD. 2 Apr. 2006
<http://http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/frame.htm>.
Livestock, Environment and Development. FAO. 26 Apr. 2006 <http://http://
www.fao.org/AG/AGAInfo/projects/en/lead.html>.
Livestock and Environmental Toolbox. LEAD. 21 Apr. 2006 <http://http://
www.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Index.htm>.
Martin, Glen. "Group's Surprising Beef with Meat Industry." San Francisco
Chronicle 27 Apr. 1999. 2 Mar. 2006 <http://boston.earthsave.org/
Drivingvsmeat.htm>.
Pollan, Michael. Interview with Terry Gross. Fresh Air. NPR. 11 Apr. 2006.
Pollan, Michael, and Steve Koontz. "Factory Farming." Interview with Neal Conan.
Talk of the Nation. NPR. 12 Jan. 2004.
Rae, Allan N, and Anna Strutt. "Livestock production and the environment: some
impacts of growth." New Zealand Economic Papers 35.2 (Dec. 2001).
Expanded Academic ASAP. 8 Mar. 2006
<http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
Redding, Matt R. "Pig effluent-P application can increase the risk of P
transport:." Australian Journal Of Soil Research 39 (Jan. 2001): 1.
Extended Academic ASAP. 8 Mar. 2006
<http://www.web4.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
Satchell, Michael. "Hog heaven-and hell: pig farming has gone high tech, and
that's creating new pollution woes." U.S. News and World Report 22 Jan.
1996. Expanded Academic ASAP. Providence Public Library. 8 Mar. 2006
<http://web4.infortrac.galegroup.com>.
State of the World 2006. Ed. Linda Starke. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and
Company, 2006.
"Tulsa Sues Chicken Processors." Feedstuffs 73.53 (Dec. 2001): 7. Expanded
Academic ASAP. Providence Public Library. 8 Mar. 2006
<http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
Wallinga, David, M.D. "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Health Risks from
Water Pollution." Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. 30 Apr. 2006
<http://www.IATP.org>.
Weinheimer, Benjamin T. "Being a good neighbor: livestock feeders, EPA offer
solutions for a changing rural landscape." Engineering and Technology for a
Sustainable World 9.8 (Aug. 2002): 7. Expanded Academic ASAP. Providence
Public Library. 8 Mar. 2006 <http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com>.