comission pew report: putting meaton the table:industrial farm animal productionin america

7/28/2019 Comission Pew Report: Putting Meaton the Table:Industrial Farm Animal Productionin America

1/122

Putting Meaton the Table:Industrial Farm

Animal Productionin America

A Project

of The Pew

Charitable Trusts

and Johns Hopkins

Bloomberg School

of Public Health

A Report of the Pew

Commission on IndustrialFarm Animal Production


2/122

Frewrd by Jh Carli ii

Preace by Rbert P. Marti vi

Hw the Curret System Develped x

Public Health 10

Evirmetal Risks 22

Aimal Welare 30

Rural America 40

Cclusi: Tward Sustaiable Aimal Agriculture 50

The Recmmedatis the Cmmissi 56

Reereces 96

Edtes 104

Fial Reprt Ackwledgmets 106

ConTEnTS


3/122

ii

Frewrd by

Jh Carli,Frmer Gverr Kasas


4/122

ii

I have witnessed dramatic changes in animal agriculture over the past several

decades. When I was growing up, my amily operated a dairy arm, which not

only raised cows to produce milk, but crops to eed the cows and wheat as a

cash crop. When I took over management o the arm rom my ather in the

mid-sixties, on average we milked about 40 cows and armed about 800 acres.

We were one o some 30 such dairy operations in Saline County, Kansas.

Today in Saline County and most Kansas counties, it is nearly impossible

to nd that kind o diversied arm. Most have given way to large, highly

specialized, and highly productive animal producing operations. In Saline

County today, there is only one dairy arm, yet it and similar operations across

the state produce more milk rom ewer cows statewide than I and all o my

peers did when I was actively arming.

Industrial arm animal production (ifap) is a complex subject involving

individuals, communities, private enterprises and corporations large and small,

consumers, ederal and state regulators, and the public at large. All Americans

have a stake in the quality o our ood, and we all benet rom a sae and

aordable ood supply. We care about the well-being o rural communities,

the integrity o our environment, the publics health, and the health andwelare o animals. Many disciplines contribute to the development and

analysis oifapincluding economics, ood science, animal sciences,

agronomy, biology, genetics, nutrition, ethics, agricultural engineering, and

veterinary medicine. The industrial arm has brought about tremendous

increases in short-term arm eciency and aordable ood, but its rapid

development has also resulted in serious unintended consequences and


5/122

iv

questions about its long-term sustainability.

I initially hesitated to get involved in the work o the Commission,

given that the nature o partisan politics today makes the discussion o any

issue acing our country extremely challenging. In the end, I accepted the

chairmanship because there is so much at stake or both agriculture and the

public at large. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production

(pcifap) sought to develop recommendations that protect what is best about

American agriculture and to help to ensure its sustainability or the uture.

Our work ocuses on our areas o concern that we believe are key to that

uture: public health, environment, animal welare, and the vitality o rural

communities; specically, we ocus on how these areas have been impacted

by industrial arm animal production.

The Commission consists o a very diverse group o individuals,

remarkably accomplished in their elds, who worked together to achieve

consensus on potential solutions to the challenge o assuring a sae and

sustainable ood supply. We sought broad input rom stakeholders and citizens

around the country. We were granted the resources needed to do our work,

and the independence to ensure that our conclusions were careully drawnand objective in their assessment o the available inormation inormed by the

Commissioners own expertise and experience. I thank each and every one or

their valuable service and all citizens who contributed to the process.


6/122

v

Finally, we were supported by a group o sta who worked tirelessly to

ensure that Commissioners had access to the most current inormation and

expertise in the elds o concern to our deliberations. We thank them or their

hard work, their patience, and their good humor.

John W. Carlin

Chairman


7/122

vi

Preace by

Rbert P. Marti,Executive Directr,Pew Cmmissi Idustrial FarmAimal Prducti


8/122

vi

Over the last 50 years, the method o producing ood animals in the United

States has changed rom the extensive system o small and medium-sized

arms owned by a single amily to a system o large, intensive operations where

the animals are housed in large numbers in enclosed structures that resemble

industrial buildings more than they do a traditional barn. That change has

happened primarily out o view o consumers but has come at a cost to the

environment and a negative impact on public health, rural communities, and

the health and well-being o the animals themselves.

The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (pcifap)

was unded by a grant rom The Pew Charitable Trusts to the Johns

Hopkins Bloomberg School o Public Health to investigate the problems

associated with industrial arm animal production (ifap) operations and to

make recommendations to solve them. Fiteen Commissioners with diverse

backgrounds began meeting in early2006 to start their evidence-based review

o the problems caused byifap.

Over the next two years, the Commission conducted 11 meetings

and received thousands o pages o material submitted by a wide range o

stakeholders and interested parties. Two hearings were held to hear romthe general public with an interest in ifap issues. Eight technical reports

were commissioned rom leading academics to provide inormation in the

Commissions areas o interest. The Commissioners themselves brought

expertise in animal agriculture, public health, animal health, medicine, ethics,

public policy, and rural sociology to the table. In addition, they visited broiler,

hog, dairy, egg, and swine ifap operations, as well as a large cattle eedlot.


9/122

viii

There have been some serious obstacles to the Commission completing its

review and approving consensus recommendations. The agriculture industry

is not monolithic, and the ormation o this Commission was greeted by

industrial agriculture with responses ranging rom open hostility to wary

cooperation. In act, while some industrial agriculture representatives were

recommending potential authors or the technical reports to Commission

sta, other industrial agriculture representatives were discouraging those same

authors rom assisting us by threatening to withhold research unding or

their college or university. We ound signicant infuence by the industry at

every turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, government

regulation, and enorcement.

At the end o his second term, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the

nation about the dangers o the military-industrial complexan unhealthy

alliance between the deense industry, the Pentagon, and their riends on

Capitol Hill. Now, the agro-industrial complexan alliance o agriculture

commodity groups, scientists at academic institutions who are paid by the

industry, and their riends on Capitol Hillis a concern in animal ood

production in the 21st century.The present system o producing ood animals in the United States is

not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level o risk to public health and

damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we

raise or ood.


10/122

ix

The story that ollows is the Commissions overview o these critical issues

and consensus recommendations on how to improve our system o production.

Robert P. Martin

Executive Director


11/122

Hw the CurretSystem Develped

x


12/122

1

The origins o agriculture go back more than 10,000 years to the beginning o the Neolithic era, when humansrst began to cultivate crops and domesticate plants andanimals. While there were many starts and stops alongthe way, agriculture provided the technology to achievea more reliable ood supply in support o larger humanpopulations. With agriculture came concepts o personalproperty and personal inheritance, and hierarchicalsocieties were organized. In short, crop cultivation ledto a global revolution or humankind, marked by theemergence o complex societies and the use o technology.

The goal o agriculture then, as now, was to meethuman demand or ood, and as the population grew,early agriculturalists ound new ways to increase yield,decrease costs o production, and sustain productivity.Over the centuries, improved agricultural methodsbrought about enormous yield gains, all to keep up withthe needs o an ever-increasing human population. In the18th century, or example, it took nearly ve acres o landto eed one person or one year, whereas today it takes

just hal an acre (Trewavas, 2002)a tenold increase inproductivity.

There is reason to wonder, however, whether thesedramatic gains, and particularly those o the last 50 years,can be sustained or the next 50 years as the worldshuman population doubles, climate change shits rainallpatterns and intensies drought cycles, ossil uels becomemore expensive, and the developing nations o the worldrapidly improve their standards o living.

Ermus Yield Gais

Agriculture in North America predated the arrival othe rst Europeans. The peoples o the Americas had

long been cultivating crops such as corn, tobacco, andpotatoescrops that even today represent more than halo the value o crops produced in the United States. Theydeveloped the technology to ertilize crops as a meansto meet the nutrient needs o their crops in the relativelypoor soils o much o the Americas. The rst Europeansettlersoten ater their own crops and arming methodsailedlearned to grow crops rom the original peopleso the Americas.

Subsistence arming was the nations primaryoccupation well into the 1800s. In 1863, or example, therewere more than six million arms and 870 million acresunder cultivation. The mechanization o agriculture beganin the 1840s with Cyrus McCormicks invention o thereaper, which increased arm yields and made it possible tomove rom subsistence arming to commercial agriculture.McCormicks reaper was a miracleit could harvest veto six acres daily compared with the two acres covered byarmers using the most advanced hand tools o the day.In anticipation o great demand, McCormick headed westto the young prairie town o Chicago, where he set up aactory and, by1860, sold a quarter o a million reapers.

The development o other arm machines ollowed inrapid succession: the automatic wire binder, the threshingmachine, and the reaper-thresher, or combine. Mechanicalplanters, cutters, and huskers appeared, as did creamseparators, manure spreaders, potato planters, hay driers,poultry incubators, and hundreds o other inventions.

New technologies or transportation and oodpreservation soon emerged. The railroad and rerigerationsystems allowed armers to get their products to marketsacross great distances to serve the rapidly growing citieso the day. Locomotives carried cattle to stockyards inKansas City and Chicago where they were sold andslaughtered. The growing urban centers created large

Industrial arm animal production (ifap) encompasses all aspects o breeding,

eeding, raising, and processing animals or their products or human

consumption. Producers rely on high-throughput production to grow thousands

o animals o one species (oten only a ew breeds o that species and only one

genotype within the breed) and or one purpose (such as pigs, layer hens, broiler

chickens, turkeys, bee, or dairy cattle).

ifaps strategies and management systems are a product o the post

Industrial Revolution era, but unlike other industrial systems, ifap is dependent

on complex biological and ecological systems or its basic raw material.

And the monoculture common to ifap acilities has diminished important

biological and genetic diversity in pursuit o higher yields and greater eciency

(Steineld et al., 2006).


13/122

2


14/122

3

and growing markets, which beneted rom the railroadsand rerigerated railcars that made year-round transporto resh and rozen meat products easible. Expandingproduction to meet growing demand was acilitated bythe agriculture policy o the ederal government, whichocused on increasing crop yields.

Agriculture i the Twetieth Cetury

Farm yields reached a plateau in the rst hal o the 20thcentury, slowed by global confict, the Dust Bowl, andthe Great Depression. Ater World War 11, Americas newafuence and growing concern or eeding the worldspoor led to the Green Revolution, the worldwidetransormation o agriculture that led to signicantincreases in agricultural production rom 1940 throughthe 1960s. This transormation relied on a regime ogenetic selection, irrigation, and chemical ertilizers andpesticides developed by researchers such as NormanBorlaug and unded by a consortium o donors led by theFord and Rockeeller oundations.

The Green Revolution dramatically increasedagricultural productivity, even outpacing the demandso the rapidly growing world population. The massiveincrease in corn yields rom the 1940s through the 1980s

provides a case in point: a armer in 1940 might haveexpected to get 7080 bushels o corn per acre, whereasby1980, arms routinely produced 200 bushels peracre, thanks to genetic selection, chemical ertilizer andpesticides, and irrigation regimes developed by GreenRevolution scientists. Similarly, the developing world hasseen cereal productionnot only corn, but also wheat andriceincrease dramatically, with a doubling in yields overthe last 40 years.

As a result o these signicant increases in output, cornand grains became inexpensive and abundant, suitableas a staple to eed not only humans but animals as well.Inexpensive corn thus made large-scale animal agriculturemore protable and acilitated the evolution o intensivelivestock eeding rom an opportunistic method omarketing corn to a protable industry.

The Green Revolution would later prove to haveunwanted ecological impacts, such as aquier depletion,groundwater contamination, and excess nutrient runo,largely because o its reliance on monoculture crops,irrigation, application o pesticides, and use o nitrogenand phosphorous ertilizers (Tilman et al., 2002). These

unwanted environmental consequences now threaten toreverse many o the yield increases attributed to the GreenRevolution in much o North America.

I 2005, Americas spet, average, 2.1% their aualicme t buy 221 lbs redmeat ad pultry.

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

PercentofDisposablePersonalIncome

1970 19901980 2000

I 1970, the average Americaspet 4.2% his r her icmet buy 194 lbs red meat adpultry aually.

America Meat Expeditures, 19702005 (Surce: Livestck Marketig Irmati Ceter)

Year


15/122

4


16/122

5

The Aimal Prducti Farm as Factry

Intensive animal production began in the 1930s withAmericas highly mechanized swine slaughterhouses.Henry Ford even credited the slaughterhouses or givinghim the idea to take the swine disassembly line ideaand put it to work as an assembly line or automobilemanuacturing. Later, the ready availability o inexpensivegrain and the rapid growth o an ecient transportation

system made the United States the birthplace or intensiveanimal agriculture.

Paralleling the crop yield increases o the GreenRevolution, new technologies in arm animal managementemerged that made it easible to raise livestock inhigher concentrations than were possible beore. Aswith corn and cereal grains, modern industrial oodanimal production systems resulted in signicant gainsin production eciency. For example, since 1960, milkproduction has doubled, meat production has tripled, andegg production has increased ourold (Delgado, 2003).

While some o these increases are due to greater numberso animals, genetic selection or improved production,

coupled with specially ormulated eeds that includeadditives o synthetic compounds, have contributedsignicantly as well. The measure o an animals eciencyin converting eed mass into increased body masstheeed conversion ratiohas improved or all ood animalspecies. The change has been most dramatic in chickens:in 1950, it took84 days to produce a5-pound chickenwhereas today it takes just 45 days (hsus , 2006a).

Intensive animal production and processing havebrought about signicant change in American agricultureover the last two decades. The current trend in animalagriculture is to grow more in less space, use cost-ecienteed, and replace labor with technology to the extentpossible. This trend toward consolidation, simplication,and specialization is consistent with many sectors othe American industrial economy. The diversied,independent, amily-owned arms o40 years agothat produced a variety o crops and a ew animals aredisappearing as an economic entity, replaced by muchlarger, and oten highly leveraged, arm actories. Theanimals that many o these arms produce are owned bythe meat packing companies rom the time they are bornor hatched right through their arrival at the processingplant and rom there to market. The packaged oodproducts are marketed ar rom the arm itsel.

These trends have been accompanied by signicantchanges in the role o the armer. More and more animalarmers have contracts with vertically integrated 1 meatpacking companies to provide housing and acilities toraise the animals rom inancy to the time they go to theslaughterhouse. The grower does not own the animalsand requently does not grow the crops to eed them. Theintegrator (company) controls all phases o production,including what and when the animals are ed. The poultryindustry was the rst to integrate, beginning during

World War 11 with War Department contracts to supplymeat or the troops. Much later, Smitheld Farms appliedthe vertical integration model to raising pork on a large


17/122

6

scale. Today, the swine and poultry industries are the mostvertically integrated, with a small number o companiesoverseeing most o the chicken meat and egg productionin the United States. In contrast, the bee cattle and dairyindustries exhibit very little or no vertical integration.

Under the modern-day contracts between integratorsand growers, the latter are usually responsible ordisposition o the animal waste and the carcasses oanimals that die beore shipment to the processor. The

costs o pollution and waste management are also thegrowers responsibility. Rules governing waste handlingand disposal methods are dened by ederal and stateagencies. Because state regulatory agencies are ree to settheir own standards as long as they are at least as stringentas the ederal rules, waste handling and disposal systemsoten vary rom state to state. Because the integratorsare ew in number and control much i not all o themarket, the grower oten has little market power and maynot be able to demand a price high enough to cover thecosts o waste disposal and environmental degradation.These environmental costs are thereby externalized tothe general society and are not captured in the costs o

production nor refected in the retail price o the product.Accompanying the trend to vertical integration is

a marked trend toward larger operations. Dependingon their size and the operators choice, these industrialarm animal production acilities may be called animaleeding operations (afo s) or concentrated animal eedingoperations (cafos) or US Environmental Protection

Agency (epa) regulatory purposes. The epadenes anafo as a lot or acility where (1) animals have been, are,or will be stabled or conned and ed or maintained ora total o45 days or more in a12-month period; and (2)crops, vegetation, orage growth, or postharvest residuesare not sustained in the normal growing season over anyportion o the lot or acility. cafos are distinguished romthe more genericafo s by their larger number o animalsor by either choosing or having that designation imposedbecause o the way they handle their animal waste. Aacility o a sucient size to be called acafo can opt outo that designation i it so chooses by stating that it doesnot discharge into navigable waters or directly into waterso the United States. For the purposes o this report, theterm industrial arm animal production (ifap) reersto the most intensive practices (such practices includegestation and arrowing crates in swine production,battery cages or egg-laying hens, and the like) regardless

o the size o the acility. Facilities o many dierent sizescan be industrial, not just those designated as cafos bythe epa.2

Regardless o whether a arm is ocially listed as acafo, ifap has greatly increased the number o animalsper operation. To illustrate, over the last 14 years, theaverage number o animals per swine operation hasincreased 2.8 times, or egg production 2.5 times, orbroilers 2.3 times, and or cattle 1.6 times (Tilman et al.,2002). More animals mean greater economies o scale andlower cost per unit. In addition, ifap acility operators,in many cases, gain greater control over the actorsthat infuence production such as weather, disease, and

nutrition. Thus, production o the desired end producttypically requires less time.

But the economic eciency oifap systems may notbe entirely attributable to animal production eciencies.Nor are the economies o scale that result rom theconnement o large numbers o animals entirelyresponsible or the apparent economic success o the ifapsystem. Rather, according to a recent Tuts Universitystudy, the overproduction o agricultural crops such as

corn and soybeans due to US agricultural policy since1996 has, until recently, driven the market price o thosecommodities well below their cost o production (Starmerand Wise, 2007a), resulting in a substantial discount toifap acility operators or their eed. The Tuts researchersalso point out that, because o weak environmentalenorcement, ifap acilities receive a urther subsidy inthe orm o externalized environmental costs. In total,the researchers estimate that the current hogifap acilityreceives a subsidy worth just over $ 10 per hundredweight,or just over $ 24 or the average hog, when compared withthe true costs o production (Starmer and Wise, 2007a;Starmer and Wise, 2007b).

Despite their proven eciency in producing oodanimals, ifap acilities have a number o inherent andunique risks that may aect their sustainability. Whilesome cafos have been sited properly with regard tolocal geological eatures, watersheds, and ecologicalsensitivity, others are located in ragile ecosystems, suchas on food plains in North Carolina and over shallowdrinking water aquiers in the Delmarva Peninsula andnortheastern Arkansas. The waste management practicesoifap acilities can have substantial adverse aects onair, water, and soils. Another major risk stems rom theroutine use o specially ormulated eeds that incorporateantibiotics, other antimicrobials, and hormones to preventdisease and induce rapid growth. The use o low doses oantibiotics as ood additives acilitates the rapid evolutionand prolieration o antibiotic-resistant strains o bacteria.The resulting potential or resistance reservoirs andinterspecies transer o resistance determinants is a high-priority public health concern. Finally, ifap acilitiesrely on selective breeding to enhance specic traits suchas growth rate, meat texture, and taste. This practice,however, results in a high degree o inbreeding, whichreduces biological and genetic diversity and represents aglobal threat to ood security, according to the Food and

Agriculture Organization (fao) o the United Nations

(Steineld et al., 2006).The potential health and environmental impacts o

ifap take on more urgent concern in the context o theglobal market or meat and meat products, consideringthat world population is expected to increase rom thecurrent our to ve billion to nine to ten billion by2050.Most o that growth will occur in low- and middle-incomecountries, where rising standards o living are acceleratingthe nutrition transition rom a diet o grains, beans,and other legumes to one with more animal protein.The demand or meat and poultry is thereore expectedto increase nearly35% by2015 (Steineld et al., 2006).To meet that rising demand, the cafo model has


18/122

7

become increasingly attractive. The spread oifap to thedeveloping world brings the benet o rapid production omeat, but at the cost o environmental and public health,costs that may be exacerbated by institutional weaknessesand governance problems common in developingcountries.

Cmmissiers Cclusis

Animal agriculture has experienced warp speed growthover the last 50 years, with intensication resulting in analmost logarithmic increase in numbers. The availabilityo high-yield and inexpensive grains has ueled thisincrease and allowed or continually increasing rateso growth in order to eed the burgeoning humanpopulation. However, diminished ossil uel supplies,global climate change, declining reshwater availability,and reduced availability o arable land all suggest thatagricultural productivity gains in the next 50 years may bear less dramatic than the rates o change seen over the last100 years.

As discussed, the transormation o traditional animalhusbandry to the industrial ood animal productionmodel and the widespread adoption oifap acilities haveled to widely available and aordable meat, poultry, dairy,and eggs. As a result, animal-derived ood products arenow inexpensive relative to disposable income, a majorreason that Americans eat more o them on a per capitabasis than anywhere else in the world. According to theUS Department o Agriculture (usda), the average cost o

all ood in the United States is less than ten percent o theaverage Americans net income, even though on a cost-per-calorie basis Americans are paying more than the citizenso many other countries (Frazo et al., 2008).

While industrial arm animal production has benets,it brings with it growing concerns or public health,the environment, animal welare, and impacts on ruralcommunities. In the sections that ollow, we examine theunintended consequences o intensive animal agricultureand its systems. The Commissions goal is to understandthose impacts and to propose recommendations to addressthem in ways that can ensure a sae system o animalagriculture while satisying the meat and poultry needs

o a nation that will soon reach 400 million Americans.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2005costper100calories,

UScents

5,000 15,00010,000 20,000

Cst per calrie rises as icme levels rise (Surce: csumpti expediture data rm

Eurmitr Iteratial 2006; cst per calrie calculated based calrie csumpti

data rm FAoSTAT 2007 [Fraz et al., 2008])

Per capita ttal expeditures (icme prxy) acrss 67 cutries (US$), 2005

25,000 30,000 35,0000


19/122

8


20/122

9

The Glbal Impact the

US Idustrial Fd Aimal

Prducti Mdel

The concentrated animal eeding

operation (CAFO) model o

production in the United States

has developed over the years into

a ne-tuned actory operation.

Recently, the CAFO model has

begun to spread to all corners o

the world, especially the developing

world. This spread brings many o

the benets that made it successul

in the developed world, but also the

problems. Those problems are oten

magnied by structural deciencies

that may exist in a country where

law and government cannot keep

pace with the countrys adoption o

animal production and other new

technologies.

Developing countries adopt

the CAFO model or two reasons.

The rst is that as people become

wealthier, they eat more meat.

From the 1970s through the 1990s,

the consumption o meat in the

developing world increased by 70

million metric tons (Delgado et al.,

1999). These countries thereore

need to produce more animal

protein than ever beore. And as

populations grow, especially in Asia,

land becomes scarce and the CAFO

model becomes more attractive

(Tao, 2003). Second, multinational

corporations involved in the animal

protein industry scour the world

looking or countries with cheap

labor and large expanses o land

available to cultivate eed or ood

animals (Martin, 2004). When they

nd these areas, they bring along the

production model that served them

well in developed countries.

This all sounds well and good i

the CAFO model allows a country

to increase its level o development

and eed its citizens, but oten

these countries are not equipped to

deal with the problems that can be

associated with CAFOs. For example,

CAFOs produce large amounts o

pollution i they are not managed

and regulated properly. Even in

many areas o the United States,

we are barely able to deal with the

harmul eects o CAFOs. In the

developing world, governments

and workers oten do not have

the ability or resources to enorce

environmental, worker saety, or

animal welare laws, i they even

exist (Tao, 2003). Or i a country does

have the capacity, it oten chooses

not to enorce regulations in the

belie that the economic benets o a

CAFO oset any detrimental impacts

(Neirenberg, 2003).

But unregulated CAFO acilities

can have disastrous consequences or

the people living and working around

them. Rivers used or washing and

drinking may be polluted. Workers

may be exposed to diseases and

other hazards that they neither

recognize nor understand because o

their limited education.

As the Commission looks at the

impact o the industrial model in the

United States, we must not orget

that these types o operations are

being built all around the globe,

oten on a larger scale and with less

regulation.

A villager locks the truck barrier ater

pigs loaded in a pig arm on January

17, 2008, in the outskir ts o Lishu

County o Jilin Province, northeast

China. Jilin Provincial government

earmarks 5.9 million yuan toward

sow subsidies; each sow will gain

100 yuan, in a bid to curb the soaring

pork price, according to local media.


21/122

10

Public Health


22/122

11

The potential public health eects associated with ifap must be examined in

the context o its potential eects on individuals and the population as a whole.

These eects include disease and the transmission o disease, the potential

or the spread o pathogens rom animals to humans, and mental and social

impacts. The World Health Organization (who) denes health as a state o

complete physical, mental and social well-being (who, 1992). This denition

is widely recognized in the developed world and is increasingly being adopted

by American employers.

In ifap systems, large numbers o animals are raised together, usually in

connement buildings, which may increase the likelihood or health issues

with the potential to aect humans, carried either by the animals or the large

quantities o animal waste. The ifap acilities are requently concentrated inareas where they can aect human population centers. Animal waste, which

harbors a number o pathogens and chemical contaminants, is usually let

untreated or minimally treated, oten sprayed on elds as ertilizer, raising the

potential or contamination o air, water, and soils. Occasionally, the impact

can be ar worse. In one recent example, arm animal waste runo rom ifap

acilities was among the suspected causes o a2006Escherichia colioutbreakin which three people died and nearly200 were sickened (cdc, 2006).

Aected Ppulatis

Health risks increase depending on the rate o exposure,which can vary widely. Those engaged directly withlivestock production, such as armers, arm workers, andtheir amilies, typically have more requent and moreconcentrated exposures to chemical or inectious agents.For others with less continuous exposure to livestock and

livestock acilities, the risk levels decline accordingly.Direct exposure is not the only health risk, however;

health impacts oten reach ar beyond the ifap acility.Groundwater contamination, or example, can extendthroughout the aquier, aecting drinking water suppliesat some distance rom the source o contamination.Inectious agents, such as a novel (or new) avian infuenzavirus, that arise in an ifap acility may be transmissiblerom person to person in a community setting andwell beyond. An inectious agent that originates at anifap acility may persist through meat processing andcontaminate consumer ood animal products, resulting ina serious disease outbreak ar rom the ifap acility.

Monitoring is a basic component o strategies toprotect the public rom harmul eects o contaminationor disease, yet ifap monitoring systems are inadequate.Current animal identication and meat productlabeling practices make it dicult or impossible to traceinections to the source. Likewise, ifap workers, whomay serve as vectors carrying potential disease-causingorganisms rom the animals they work with to the larger

community, do not usually participate in public healthmonitoring, disease reporting, and surveillance programsbecause, as an agricultural activity, ifap is oten exempt.Furthermore, migrant and visiting workers, many owhom are undocumented, present a particular challengeto adequate monitoring and surveillance because theirlegal status oten makes them unwilling to participate inhealth monitoring programs.

In general, public health concerns associated withifap include heightened risks o pathogens (disease- andnondisease-causing) passed rom animals to humans;the emergence o microbes resistant to antibiotics andantimicrobials, due in large part to widespread use o


23/122

12


24/122

13

antimicrobials or nontherapeutic purposes; ood-bornedisease; worker health concerns; and dispersed impacts onthe adjacent community at large.

Pathge Traser

The potential or pathogen transer rom animals tohumans is increased in ifap because so many animals

are raised together in conned areas. ifap eed andanimal management methods successully maximize theeciency o meat or poultry production and shorten thetime it takes to reach market weight, but they also createa number o opportunities or pathogen transmissionto humans. Three actors account or the increasedrisk: prolonged worker contact with animals; increasedpathogen transmission in a herd or fock; and increasedopportunities or the generation o antibiotic-resistantbacteria or new strains o pathogens. Stresses induced byconnement may also increase the likelihood o inectionand illness in animal populations.

Fity years ago, aUS armer who raised pigs or

chickens might be exposed to several dozen animals orless than an hour a day. Todays connement acilityworker is oten exposed to thousands o pigs or tenso thousands o chickens or eight or more hours eachday. And whereas sick or dying pigs might have beena relatively rare exposure event 50 years ago, todaysagricultural workers care or sick or dying animals dailyin their routine care o much larger herds and focks.This prolonged contact with livestock, both healthy andill, increases agricultural workers risks o inection withzoonotic pathogens.

Iectius Disease

Numerous known inectious diseases can be transmittedbetween humans and animals; in act, o the more than1,400 documented human pathogens, about 64% arezoonotic (Woolhouse and Gowtage-Sequeria, 2005;

Woolhouse et al., 2001). In addition, new strains andtypes o inectious and transmissible agents are oundevery year. Among the many ways that inectious agentscan evolve to become more virulent or to inect peopleare numerous transmission events and co-inectionwith several strains o pathogens. For this reason,

industrial arm animal production acilities that houselarge numbers o animals in very close quarters can bea source o new or more inectious agents. Healthy orasymptomatic animals may carry microbial agents thatcan inect and sicken humans, who may then spread theinection to the community beore it is discovered in theanimal population.

Geerati nvel Viruses

While transmission o new or novel viruses rom animalsto humans, such as avian or swine infuenza, seems a

rather inrequent event today (Gray et al., 2007; Myers,Olsen et al., 2007), the continual cycling o viruses andother animal pathogens in large herds or focks increasesopportunities or the generation o novel viruses throughmutation or recombinant events that could result in moreecient human-to-human transmission. In addition,as noted earlier, agricultural workers serve as a bridgingpopulation between their communities and the animalsin large connement acilities (Myers et al., 2006; Saenz

et al., 2006). Such novel viruses not only put the workersand animals at risk o inection but also may increase therisk o disease transmission to the communities where theworkers live.

Fd-Bre Iecti

Food production has always involved the risk o microbialcontamination that can spread disease to humans, andthat risk is certainly not unique to ifap. However, thescale and methods common to ifap can signicantlyaect pathogen contamination o consumer ood

products. All areas o meat, poultry, egg, and dairyproduction (e.g., manure handling practices, meatprocessing, transportation, and animal rendering) cancontribute to zoonotic disease and ood contamination(Gilchrist et al., 2007). Several recent and high-prolerecalls involvingE. ColiO157:H7 and Salmonella entericaserve as dramatic reminders o the risk.

Food-borne pathogens can have dire consequenceswhen they do reach human hosts. A1999 report estimatedthat E. ColiO157:H7 inections caused approximately73,000 illnesses each year, leading to over 2,000hospitalizations and 60 deaths each year in the UnitedStates (Mead et al., 1999). Costs associated with

E. Coli

O157:H7related illnesses in the United States wereestimated at $405 million annually: $370 million ordeaths, $ 30 million or medical care, and $ 5 millionor lost productivity (Frenzen et al., 2005). Animalmanure, especially rom cattle, is the primary sourceo these bacteria, and consumption o ood and watercontaminated with animal wastes is a major route ohuman inection.

Because o the large numbers o animals in a typicalifap acility, pathogens can inect hundreds or thousandso animals even though the inection rate may be airlylow as a share o the total population. In some cases, it

may be very dicult to detect the pathogen; Salmonellaenterica(se ), or example, is known to colonize theintestinal tract o birds without causing obvious disease(Suzuki, 1994), although the inected hen ovaries thentranser the organism to the egg contents. Althoughthe requency ose contamination in eggs is low (ewerthan 1 in 20,000 eggs), the large numbers o eggs65billionproduced in the United States each year meansthat contaminated eggs represent a signicant source orhuman exposure. Underscoring this point, the Centersor Disease Control and Prevention (cd c) estimatedthat se -contaminated eggs accounted or approximately180,000 illnesses in the United States in 2000 (Schroeder

Ztic disease:

A disease caused by a microbia

agent that normally exists in

animals but that can inect

humans.


25/122

14


26/122

15

Atimicrbial resistace:

The result o microbial changes

that reduce or eliminate the

eectiveness o drugs.

et al., 2005). The potential advantage oifap in thiscircumstance is that concentrated production andprocessing in ewer, larger acilities can result in improvedproduct saety i regulations are properly instituted andvigilantly enorced.

Feed ad Pathge Risk

Feed ormulation urther infuences pathogen risk becausethe eeds or conned animals are signicantly dierentrom the orage traditionally available to poultry, swine,or cattle. These eeds have been modied to:

Reduce the time needed to reach market weight;Increase the eciency o eed conversionthe amounto ood converted to animal protein (rather thanmanure); andEnsure the survivability and uniormity o animals.Other changes in modern animal eeds are the

extensive recycling o animal ats and proteins throughrendering and the addition o industrial and animalwastes as well as antimicrobials (a ms), including arsenic-

derived compounds (arsenicals). In some cases, theseadditives can be dangerous to human health, as il lustratedby the bovine spongiorm encephalopathy (bs e) crisis inBritain in the early1990sscientists discovered that itresulted rom the inclusion o brain and brainstem partsin the renderings that went into animal eeds. Since thatdiscovery, great care has been taken to eliminate brain andspinal cord material rom animal renderings. However,the ongoing addition o antimicrobial agents to ifaplivestock oodstus to promote growth also promotes theemergence o resistant strains o pathogens, presenting asignicant risk to human health.

ntherapeutic Atimicrbial Usead Resistace

The use o antibiotics or growth promotion began in the1940s when the poultry industry discovered that the use otetracycline ermentation byproducts resulted in improvedgrowth (Stokstad and Jukes, 19581959). Though themechanism o this action was never ully understood,the practice o adding low levels o antibiotics and, morerecently, growth hormones to stimulate growth andimprove production and perormance has continued over

the ensuing50 years.In the 1990s, the public became aware o the threat o

antimicrobial resistance as the number o drug-resistantinections increased in humans. However, antimicrobialresistance has been observed almost since the discovery openicillin. In 2000, awho report on inectious diseasesexpressed alarm at the spread o multidrug-resistantinectious disease agents and noted that a major source oantimicrobial-resistant bacteria was ood:

Since the discovery o the growth-promotingand disease-ghting capabilities o antibiotics,armers, sh-armers and livestock producers have

used antimicrobials in everything rom apples toaquaculture. Currently, only hal o all antibiotics areslated or human consumption. The other 50% areused to treat sick animals, as growth promoters inlivestock, and to rid cultivated oodstus o variousdestructive organisms. This ongoing and otenlow-level dosing or growth and prophylaxis inevitablyresults in the development o resistance in bacteriain or near livestock, and also heightens ears o

new resistant strains jumping between species(who , 2000)

Despite increased recognition o the problem, theInectious Disease Society o America (isda) recentlydeclared antibiotic-resistant inections to be an epidemicin the United States (Spellberg et al., 2008). The cdcestimated that 2 million people contract resistantinections annually and, o those, 90,000 die. A decadeago, the Institute o Medicine estimated that antimicrobialresistance costs the United States between $4 and $5 billionannually, and these costs are certainly higher now as theproblem o resistance has grown and intensied worldwide

(Harrison et al., 1998).Because bacteria reproduce rapidly, resistance can

develop relatively quickly in the presence o antimicrobialagents, and once resistance genes appear in the bacterialgene pool, they can be transerred to related and unrelatedbacteria. Thereore, increased exposure to antimicrobials(particularly at low levels) increases the pool o resistantorganisms and the risk o antimicrobial-resistantinections. Consider the ollowing:

Antimicrobials are readily available online orthrough direct purchase rom the manuacturer ordistributor, allowing unrestricted access by armers topharmaceuticals and chemicals without a prescriptionor veterinarians oversight; andSome classes o antibiotics that are used to treat lie-threatening inections in humans, such as penicillinsand tetracyclines, are allowed in animal eeds topromote animal growth.Groups attempting to estimate the amount o

antimicrobials used in ood animal production areoten thwarted by varying denitions o therapeutic,nontherapeutic, and growth-promoting. For example,the Union o Concerned Scientists estimated that 70%o antimicrobials in the United States are used in oodanimal production, whereas the Animal Health Institute

estimated closer to 30% (ahi , 2002 ; Mellon et al., 2001).Others have not bothered with an estimate because othe lack o both clear denitions and data (Mellon et al.,2001;who, 2000). A universally accepted denitiono the various types o use is necessary to estimateantimicrobial use and to ormulate policy governingthe use o antimicrobials in ood animals. The lack opublicly available validated inormation on the volume oantimicrobial use as a eed additive leaves policymakersuninormed about the true state o antimicrobial usein ood animal production and its relationship to thegrowing problem o antimicrobial resistance.

Supporters o the use o antibiotics as growth


27/122

16

Edtxi:

A toxin that is present in a

bacteria cell and is released

when the cell disintegrates. It

is sometimes responsible or

the characteristic symptoms o

a disease, such as botulism.

promoters maintain that their use, along with othertechnologies, results in more aordable meat products orconsumers, decreased production costs, and less impact onthe environment as ewer animals are required to producea unit o meat product. However, it is not clear that theuse o antimicrobials in ood is cost-eective, either interms o increased health care costs as a result o resistantinections, or or the acility itsel (Graham et al., 2007).

Antimicrobial-resistant bacteria have been ound both

in and downwind oifap acilities (e.g., swine) but notupwind (Gibbs et al., 2004). Several groups have reviewedthe association between the use o low-level antimicrobialsin ood animal production and the development oantimicrobial resistance in humans (Teuber, 2001; Smith,Harris et al., 2002).

Whatever the direct evidence, it is certain that theexposure o bacteria to antimicrobial agents selectsresistant bacteria that can replicate and persist. Suchbacteria rom ifap acilities can reach humans throughmany routes, both direct (through ood, water, air,or contact) and indirect (via transmission o resistancein the environmental pool o bacteria).

occupatial Health Impacts Idustrial Farm Aimal Prducti

ifap acilities generate toxic dust and gases that may causetemporary or chronic respiratory irritation among workersand operators. ifap workers experience symptoms similarto those experienced by grain handlers: acute and chronicbronchitis, nonallergic asthmalike syndrome, mucousmembrane irritation, and noninectious sinusitis. Anindividuals specic response depends on characteristics othe inhaled irritants and on the individuals susceptibility.In general, the symptoms are more requent and severeamong smokers (Donham and Gustason, 1982;Markowitz et al., 1985; Marmion et al., 1990) and amongworkers in large swine operations (who work longer hoursinside ifap buildings) or in buildings with high levels odusts and gases (Donham et al., 2000 ; Donham et al.,1995; Reynolds et al., 1996). Evidence also suggests thatincreasing exposure to ifap irritants leads to increasedairway sensitivity (Donham and Gustason, 1982;Donham et al., 1989).

Another, more episodic, bioaerosol-related problemexperienced by about 30% oifap acility workers is

organic dust toxic syndrome (odts) (Do Pico, 1986;Donham et al., 1990), which is thought to be causedmainly by inhaled endotoxin and usually occurs inworkers exposed to high levels o dust or our or morehours (Rylander, 1987). Although its onset may bedelayed, the symptoms are more severe than thosedescribed above: ever, malaise, muscle aches, headache,cough, and tightness o the chest.

In addition to dust, irritants such as gases are generated

inside arm buildings rom the decomposition o animalurine and eces (ammonia, hydrogen sulde, andmethane, among others) (Donham and Gustason, 1982;Donham and Popendor, 1985; Donham et al., 1995).The combination o dusts and gases in ifap acilities canrise to concentrations that may be acutely hazardous toboth human and animal health (Donham and Gustason,1982).

Decomposing manure produces at least 160 dierentgases, o which hydrogen sulde (H

2S), ammonia, carbon

dioxide, methane, and carbon monoxide are the mostpervasive (Donham et al., 1982a; Donham and Gustason,1982; Donham et al., 1982b; Donham and Popendor,1985; Donham et al., 1988). These gases may seep rompits under the building or they may be released bybacterial action in the urine and eces on the connementhouse foor (one study showed that the latter accountedor 40% o the ammonia measured in-building [Donhamand Gustason, 1982]).

Possibly the most dangerous gas common to ifapacilities is hydrogen sulde. It can be released rapidlywhen liquid manure slurry is agitated, an operationcommonly perormed to suspend solids so that pitscan be emptied by pumping (Donham et al., 1982b;Osbern and Crapo, 1981). During agitation, H

2S levels

can soar within seconds rom the usual ambient levels oless than 5 ppm to lethal levels o over 500 ppm (Donhamet al., 1982b; Donham et al., 1988). Generally, the greaterthe agitation, the more rapid and larger amount o H

2S

released. Animals and workers have died or becomeseriously ill in swine ifap acilities when H

2S has risen

rom agitated manure in pits under the building.Hydrogen sulde exposure is most hazardous when themanure pits are located beneath the houses, but an acutelytoxic environment can result i gases rom outside storageacilities backfow into a building (due to inadequate gastraps or other design aults) or i a worker enters a connedstorage structure where gases have accumulated.

Atimicrbial Resistace

Lie-threatening bacteria are

becoming more dangerous and drug

resistant because o imprudent

antibiotic use in humans as well as

animals, yet the ederal government

response to protect the ecacy

o these drugs has been limited.

For instance, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is moving

ahead with approval o cequinome,

a highly potent antibiotic, or use

in cattle despite strong opposition

rom the Centers or Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), the American

Medical Association, and FDAs own

advisory board. Health experts are

concerned about the approval o

drugs rom this class o medicines or

animal use because they are one o

the last deenses against many grave

human inections. Moreover, in this

instance, the drug proposed is to

combat a orm o cow pneumonia or

which several other treatment agents

are available.


28/122

17

Cmmuity Health Eectsad Vulerable Ppulatis

Communities near ifap acilities are subject to airemissions that, although lower in concentration, maysignicantly aect certain segments o the population.Those most vulnerablechildren, the elderly, individualswith chronic or acute pulmonary or heart disordersareat particular risk.

The impact on the health o those living nearifap acilities has increasingly been the subject oepidemiological research. Adverse community healtheects rom exposure to ifap air emissions all intotwo categories: (1) respiratory symptoms, disease, andimpaired unction, and (2) neurobehavioral symptomsand impaired unction.

Respiratry Health

Four large epidemiological studies have demonstratedstrong and consistent associations between ifap air

pollution and asthma. Merchant and colleagues, in acountywide prospective study o1,000 Iowa amilies,reported a high prevalence o asthma among arm childrenliving on arms that raise swine (44 .1%) and, o those, onthe arms that add antibiotics to eed (55.8%) (Merchantet al., 2005). Most o the children lived on amily-ownedifap acilities, and many either did chores or were exposedas bystanders to occupational levels oifap air pollution.

Mirabelli and colleagues published two papersdescribing a study o226 North Carolina schoolsranging rom 0.2 to 42 miles rom the nearest ifapacility (Mirabelli et al., 2006a; Mirabelli et al., 2006b).Children living within three miles o an ifap acility hadsignicantly higher rates o doctor-diagnosed asthma,used more asthma medication, and had more asthma-related emergency room visits and / or hospitalizationsthan children who lived more than three miles roman ifap acility. Their research also showed thatexposure to livestock odor varied by racial and economiccharacteristics, indicating an environmental justice issueamong the states swine arms (Mirabelli et al., 2006a).

Sigurdarson and Kline studied children romkindergarten through th grade in two rural Iowaschools, one located hal a mile rom an ifap acilityand the other distant rom any large-scale agricultural

operation (Sigurdarson and Kline, 2006). Children inthe school near the acility had a signicantly increasedprevalence o doctor-diagnosed asthma, but there was nodierence between the two populations in the severity oasthma. Potential biases among children living close tothe ifap included children who were more likely to liveon a arm (direct ifap exposure was not assessed) andwho more oten lived in houses where parents smoked,but neither o these conounders explained the increasein asthma prevalence. The authors noted that physiciansresponsible or the medical care o these two groups ochildren diered and, thereore, did not rule out physicianbias in asthma diagnosis.

Radon and colleagues conducted a20022004 surveyamong all adults (18 to 45) living in our rural Germantowns with a high density oifap (Radon et al., 2007).Questionnaire data were available or 6,937 (68%) eligibleadults. Exposure was estimated by collecting data onodor annoyance and by geocoding data on the number oifap acilities within 1,530 eet o each home. To controlor occupational health eects, the researchers limitedtheir analyses to adults without private or proessional

contact with arming environments. The prevalenceo sel-reported asthma symptoms and nasal allergiesincreased with sel-reported odor annoyance, and thenumber oifap acilities was a predictor o sel-reportedwheeze and decreased fev1 (orced expiratory volumein the rst second; see denition). Although odor variedrom day to day, the study reported reasonable test-retestreliability o the question on odor annoyance in thehome environment. Sources o bias in this study includea somewhat dated (2000) registry oifap acilities andpossible exposure misclassication.

These recent, well-controlled studies are consistent innding associations between proximity to ifap acilities

and both asthma symptoms and doctor-diagnosedasthma, although they all use proxies or environmentalexposure to ifap emissions. Taken together, however,they provide reason to increase awareness o asthma risksin communities near ifap acilities, to better inormrural doctors o standards or asthma diagnosis and o thereported association with ifap acilities, and to pursuelocal and state environmental measures to minimize risksto children and adults living near ifap acilities.

neurbehaviral outcmes

Volatile organic compounds are important componentso the thousands o gases, vapors, and aerosols present inifap acilities. More than 24 odorous chemicals (otenreerred to as odorants) have been identied in ifapemissions (Cole et al., 2000). Valeric acids, mercaptans,and amines are particularly odorous, even in minusculeconcentrations; ammonia and hydrogen sulde are alsopungently aromatic. Many o these compounds areknown to be toxic to the nervous system in sucientconcentration. It is thus not surprising that the ewstudies that have examined neurobehavioral issues amongresidents living near ifap acilities have documented

increased rates o neurobehavioral symptoms such asdepression.

Schiman and colleagues studied North Carolinaresidents who lived in the vicinity o intensive swineoperations and then compared ndings rom this groupto matched control subjects who did not live near ifapacilities (Schiman et al., 1995). They ound morenegative mood states (e.g., tension, depression, anger,reduced vigor, atigue, and conusion) among those livingclose to ifap acilities. In a study o chronic (non-ifap orifap) occupational exposures to hydrogen sulde, Kilburnound that such exposures might lead to neuropsychiatricabnormalities, including impaired balance, hearing,

FEV1 (rced expiratry

vlume i the rst secd)

The volume o air that can

be orced out in one second

ater taking a deep breath,

an important measure o

pulmonary unction.


29/122

18


30/122

19

memory, mood, intellectual unction, and visual eldperormance (Kilburn, 1997).

Reports have documented that there is great variabilityamong odors rom ifap acilities, that odorous gases maybe transormed through interactions with other gases andparticulates between the source and the receptor (Petersand Blackwood, 1977), and that there is variability inodor persistence (the persistence actor), dened asthe relative time that odorous gases remain perceptible

(Summer, 1971). There remains a need to combinequantitative measures o odors with environmentalmeasures o a suite o odorants in well-designed,controlled studies o neurobehavioral symptoms and signsin community-based studies.

Cclusis

The Commissioners note that the same techniques thathave increased the productivity o animal agriculturehave also contributed to public health concerns associatedwith ifap. These concernsantimicrobial resistance,

zoonotic disease transer to humans, and occupationaland community health impacts that stem rom the dustsand gases produced byifap acilitiesare not unique toindustrial arm animal production or even agriculture.The industrial economy causes signicant ecologicaldisruption, and that disruption is a major cause o disease.Microbes have always existed, will continue to exist, andwill learn to adapt aster. It is the size and concentrationoifap acilities and their juxtaposition with humanpopulations that make ifap a particular concern.

The Commission recommends that the ederalgovernment and animal agriculture industry address thecauses o these public health concerns, particularly in thearea o antimicrobial resistance, in order to reduce risksto the general public. The headlines rom the all o2006when E. Colicontaminated spinach made its way to theconsumer market are resh in the publics mind (cd c,2006). The Commissions recommendations in this areaare intended to bring about greater public protectionwithout imposing an undue burden on the animalagriculture industry.


31/122

20


32/122

21

Methicilli (Atibitic)-

Resistat Staphylcccus

aureus (MRSA)

Staphylococcus aureusis a common

bacterium that causes supercial

inections and occasionally invasive

inections that can be atal. Strains

oS. aureusthat are resistant

to the antibiotic methicillin and

related antibiotics commonly

used to treat it are reerred to as

methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus

aureus(MRSA). MRSA and other

staphylococci may be ound on

human skin, in the nose (where it can

reside without causing symptoms),

and on objects in the environment,

and can be passed rom person to

person through close contact. MRSA

is usually subcategorized as either

hospital-acquired or community-

acquired, not only because o where

the inection was acquired, but also

because dierent strains o the

bacteria appear to be responsible or

the dierent types o inections.

MRSA has become the most

requent cause o skin and sot tissue

inections in patients seeking care

in US emergency rooms (Moran et

al., 2006). It can also cause severe

and sometimes atal invasive disease

(Zetola et al., 2005). A recent study

rom the Centers or Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), reported in

the Journal of the American Medical

Association (JAMA), showed a rise in

invasive MRSA inections both within

and outside o health care settings

in the United States in 2005. In

particular, the authors noted a rise in

community-acquired invasive MRSA,

although it is still less prevalent than

the hospital-acquired strain (Klevens

et al., 2007). They cite MRSA as

a major emerging public health

problem.

Pigs and some other animals can

also carry staphylococci (including

MRSA) on their bodies (known as

colonization). MRSA colonization

in pigs was rst studied in the

Netherlands, where it was ound

that pig armers were 760 times

more likely to be colonized with

MRSA than people in the general

population (Voss et al., 2005). In

addition, the study documented

transmission o MRSA between

pigs, pig armers, and their amilies

(Huijsdens et al., 2006; Voss et al.,

2005). A separate study in the journal

Veterinary Microbiologylooked

at the prevalence o MRSA in pigs

and pig armers in Ontario, Canada

(Khanna et al., 2007). This study

ound that MRSA is common in pigs

on arms in Ontario: it was present

in 24.9% o all pigs sampled and in

20% o the armers (the prevalence

in the study was 45%). In addition,

there was a signicant correlation

between the presence o MRSA in

pigs and humans on arms (Khanna et

al., 2007). The strains ound in both

pigs and armers in Ontario were

mainly o a type that has been ound

in pigs in Europe, as well as a s train

commonly ound in US health care

acilities.

S. aureushas also been isolated,

at varying levels, rom meat in Egypt

(Bakr et al., 2004), Switzerland

(Schrat et al., 1992), and Japan (Kitai

et al., 2005). Analysis o the strains

o bacteria isolated rom these meat

products suggested that they were

o human origin, probably due to

contamination during processing. A

recent study rom the Netherlands,

however, ound low levels o MRSA

strains in meat that were probably

o animal (arm) origin (van Loo

et al., 2007). Proper cooking o the

meat kills the bacteria, but there is

a risk o transmission to workers in

processing plants and to consumers

beore the meat is cooked.

The growing importance o

MRSA as a public health problem in

the United States and elsewhere,

as well as the growing body o

evidence suggesting transmission

between arm animals and humans

and among humans, makes it

particularly relevant to the discussion

o antimicrobial use in ood animals

(Witte et al., 2007).


33/122

22

Evirmetal Risks


34/122

23

Industrial arm animal production (ifap) stands in sharp contrast to previous

animal arming methods because o its emphasis on production eciency and

cost minimization. For most o the past 10,000 years, agricultural practice and

animal husbandry were more or less sustainable, as measured by the balance

between agricultural inputs and outputs and ecosystem health, given the

human population and rate o consumption. ifap systems, on the other hand,

have shited to a ocus on growing animals as units o protein production.

Rather than balancing the natural productivity o the land to produce crops

to eed animals, ifap imports eed and medicines to ensure that the animals

make it to market weight in the shortest time possible. Animals and their

waste are concentrated and may well exceed the capacity o the land to

produce eed or absorb the waste. Not surprisingly, the rapid ascendance oifap has produced unintended and oten unanticipated environmental and

public health concerns.

Storage and disposal o manure and animal waste areamong the most signicant challenges or ifap operators.By any estimate, the amount o arm animal wasteproduced annually in the United States is enormous;the United States Department o Agriculture (usda)estimates around 500 million tons o manure areproduced annually by operations that conne livestockand poultrythree times the epa estimate o150 milliontons o human sanitary waste produced annually in theUS (epa, 2007b). And in comparison to the lesser amounto human waste, the management and disposal o animalwastes are poorly regulated.

Until the late 1950s, manures typically were eitherdeposited directly by animals on pastures or processed insolid orm and collected along with bedding (usually hayor straw) rom animal housing acilities or applicationto the land as a crop nutrient. There were no regulatedrates o application, seasonal restrictions, or requirements

or the reporting, analysis, or monitoring o appliedmanures. This lack o protection may have been withoutconsequence beore ifap because animal armers managedewer animals, widely dispersed among agriculturallands, and relied on natural ecosystems or attenuatingpathogens and absorbing or diluting nutrients. But as thenumber o animals on individual arms increased, theneed or more ecient and regulated methods o manuremanagement grew in importance.

As in large human settlements, improper managemento the highly concentrated eces produced byifapacilities can and does overwhelm natural cleansingprocesses. Because o the large concentrations o animals

and their manure, what was once a valuable byproductis now a waste that requires proper disposal. As a result,animal eeding operations in the United States, whetherifap or not, now use a number o manure managementstrategies depending on the type o operation and stateand ederal regulations.

nutriet ad Chemical Ctamiatsi the Water

Ground application o untreated manure is a commondisposal method and a relatively inexpensive alternativeto chemical ertilizers because nitrogen and phosphorus,essential nutrients or plant growth, are present in highconcentrations in animal waste. Ground application oifap waste can exceed the ecological capacity o the landto absorb all the nutrients (Arbuckle and Downing, 2001).

Application o untreated animal waste on cropland cancontribute to excessive nutrient loading, contaminatesurace waters, and stimulate bacteria and algalgrowth and subsequent reductions in dissolved oxygenconcentrations in surace waters (Rabalais et al., 1996).

Nutrient load in water supplies is commonly assessedby biochemical oxygen demand (bo d), a measureo organic and inorganic substances subject to aerobicmicrobial metabolism. Very high bo d levels indicatesignicant waterborne contamination and dicultiesor aquatic lie. Highly concentrated manure, suchas swine waste slurries, exhibit abo d o20,000to 30,000 mg per liter (Webb and Archer, 1994), which


35/122

24


36/122

25

is about 75 times more concentrated than raw humansewage and more than 500 times more concentrated thanthe treated efuent rom the average municipal wastewatertreatment acility. Algal blooms, a common response tothe high nutrient loads in agricultural runo, rapidlydeplete oxygen as the algae die and decompose aerobically.

Agricultural runo laden with chemicals (syntheticertilizers and pesticides) and nutrients is suspected asa major culprit responsible or many dead zones in

both inland and marine waters, aecting an estimated173,000 miles oUS waterways (Cook, 1998). Animalarming is also estimated to account or 55% o soil andsediment erosion, and more than 30% o the nitrogenand phosphorus loading in the nations drinking waterresources (Steineld et al., 2006).

ifap acilities in high-risk areas such as foodplainsare particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events thatincrease the risk, and quantity, o runo. Flood eventsoverwhelm the storage capacity oifap liquid manurelagoons and cause catastrophic contamination that resultsin very large sh kills.

Beyond nitrogen and phosphorus, waterborne

chemical contaminants associated with ifap acilitiesinclude pesticides, heavy metals, and antibiotics andhormones. Pesticides control insect inestations and ungalgrowth. Heavy metals, especially zinc and copper, areadded as micronutrients to the animal diet. Antibioticsare used not only to prevent and treat bacterial inectionsor animals held in close quarters, but also as growthpromoters. Pharmaceuticals, such as tylosin, a macrolideantibiotic widely used or therapeutics (disease treatment)and growth promotion in swine, bee cattle, and poultry,decays rapidly in the environment but persists in suracewaters o agricultural watersheds (Song et al., 2007).

Nitrate is another important drinking watercontaminant, regulated under epas Sae Drinking

Water Act. Its eects on humans include diseases such ashyperthyroidism (Sener, 1995; Tajtakova et al., 2006)and insulin-dependent diabetes (Kostraba et al., 1992),as well as increased risk o adverse reproductive outcomesand neurodevelopmental deects (Arbuckle et al., 1988;Burkholder et al., 2007). The USepa sets allowable limitsor nitrate o10 mg / l in public drinking water supplies

and requires tertiary treatment or amendment withgroundwater beore distribution (epa, 2006).

The presence o agricultural chemicals in suracewaters contributes to the growth o cyanobacteria andother microorganisms that may be especially harmul topeople with depressed or immature immune systems(Rao et al., 1995; Shi et al., 2004).

It is also recognized that ammonia emissions romlivestock contribute signicantly to the eutrophicationand acidication o soils and waters. Eutrophicationis an excessive richness o nutrients in a body o water,mostly nitrates and phosphates rom erosion and runo osurrounding lands, that causes a dense growth o plant lie

and the death o animal lie due to lack o oxygen. Somelevel o eutrophication occurs naturally, but this processcan be accelerated by human activities. Acidication canput stress on species diversity in the natural environment.Reduction o ammonia emissions rom cafos requirescovering o manure storage tanks and reservoirs and thedirect injection o controlled quantities o manure slurryinto soil only during the growing season. Land applicationo manure during winter months or rainy weather leads tosignicant runo into surace waters.

Legislatig Aimal Waste

Maagemet: nrth Carlia

As the numbers o large industrial

livestock and poultry arms increase

across the country, so do concerns

about animal waste disposal and

its eects on public health and

the environment. To address these

concerns, several state and local

lawmakers have passed or proposed

laws aimed directly at concentrated

animal eeding operations (CAFOs)in hopes o protecting local waters

and limiting the risks o pollution.

Lawmakers in North Carolina,

the nations second-largest hog

producerproducing almost 10

million swine a yearstruggled

or years to pass legislation that

would help reduce the water and air

pollution caused by IFAP operations.

Most o the states hog armers are

concentrated in a ew counties in the

coastal plain region; according to the

Raleigh News & Observer, there are

more than 2,300 arms registered

in the state, most o them in rural

eastern North Carolina.

In the late 1990s, state lawmakers

were the rst in the nation to

institute a temporary statewide

moratorium on the construction o

new hog waste lagoons and spray

elds as primary methods o waste

management, and in September

2007, they made the ban permanent(Senate enacts ban on new

hog-waste lagoons, The News &

Observer, April 19, 2007). The law

not only bans the construction o

new lagoons but requires that new

waste management systems meet

strict environmental perormance

standards. It does not change

requirements or existing lagoons,

but provides monetary assistance

or armers to voluntarily convert

to alternative waste management

systems. However, Deborah Johnson,

chie executive ocer o the North

Carolina Pork Council, told the

National Hog Farmer, Unless some

new technological breakthrough

happens, we will have lagoons and

spray elds or the oreseeable

uture (North Carolina Keeps Swine

Lagoons, National Hog Farmer: July

26, 2007).

The new law also established a

pilot program that helps armersconvert methane emissions rom

covered lagoons to electricity.

Some environmental and community

advocates are concerned, however,

that the methane program will

discourage armers who use lagoons

rom investing in alternative waste

disposal systems.


37/122

26


38/122

27

Bilters

Biolters are a method or

reducing air emissions rom

IFAP acilities. They are airly

simple to construct and

operate, successully mitigate

air emissions, and they are cost

eective.

The lters can be made rom

several kinds o material, but

they are most oten a mixture

o compost and woodchips

wrapped in a abric. The

abric keeps the lter rom

clogging and must be replaced

periodically. Most biolters

operate in conjunction with a

system to sprinkle water on

the lter and ans to blow air

through it.

The lters work by

converting the compounds in

the air into water and carbon

dioxide. Air rom inside the

pit or barn is orced through

the lter and then out into the

atmosphere.

Biolters can reduce odor

and ammonia emissions by over

80%.

Water Stress

Like other aspects oifap (such as manure disposal),crop production or animal eed places enormous demandon water resources: 87% o the use o reshwater in theUS is used in agriculture, primarily irrigation (Pimentelet al., 1997). For example, it takes nearly420 gallons owater to produce one pound o grain-ed broiler chicken(Pimentel et al., 1997). ifap operations in arid or semiarid

regions are thus o particular concern because o theirhigh water demand on the limited supply o water,much o it rom aquiers that may have limited rechargecapacity. The 174,000 -square-mile Ogallala aquier, orexample, is a ossil aquier that dates back to the last iceage and underlies parts o Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado,Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Irrigation hasreduced the Ogallala by more than hal, and currentdepletion rates exceed 3.3 eet per year o water table level(McMichael, 1993; Soule and Piper, 1992). Because theaquiers very slow recharge rate is vastly outstripped byirrigation and other human needs, the aquier is at risko being ully depleted, threatening not only agriculture

but drinking water supplies or a huge area o the UnitedStates.

Greehuse Gases ad otherAir Pllutats

Globally, greenhouse gas emissions rom all livestockoperations account or 18% o anthropogenic greenhousegas emissions, exceeding those rom the transportationsector (Steineld et al., 2006). Agriculture accountsor 7.4% o the total US release o greenhouse gases(epa, 2007a). Animals produce greenhouse gases suchas methane and carbon dioxide during the digestion

process. Other greenhouse gases, primarily nitrous oxide,arise mainly rom the microbial degradation o manure.

Additional emissions result rom degradation processesin uncovered waste lagoons and anaerobic digesters. Theglobal warming potential o these emissions, comparedto a value o one or carbon dioxide, is 62 or methaneand 275 or nitrous oxide on a20-year time horizon.The USepa Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report data oragricultural inputs are summarized below.

Emission control solutions are now being examinedby the epa, along with possible opportunities or carboncredits and credit trading (Jensen, 2006).

Air quality degradation is also a problem in andaround ifap acilities because o the localized release osignicant quantities o toxic gases, odorous substances,and particulates and bioaerosols that contain a varietyo microorganisms and human pathogens (urtherdiscussed in the public health section o this report).These compounds arise rom eed, animals, manure, andmicroorganisms. Highly noxious odors are associatedwith vapor phase chemicals and compounds adherent toparticles. These agents emanate rom livestock acilities,

waste storage reservoirs, and manure application sites,and all can be transported aerially rom ifap acilities toneighbors or neighboring communities.

Some o the most objectionable compounds are theorganic acids, which include acetic acid, butyric acids,valeric acids, caproic acids, and propanoic acid; sulur-containing compounds such as hydrogen sulde anddimethyl sulde; and nitrogen-containing compoundsincluding ammonia, methyl amines, methyl pyrazines,skatoles, and indoles. Smells associated with thesecompounds are described as similar to those o rotten eggsor rotting vegetables (hydrogen sulde, dimethyl sulde),rancid butter (butyric acids), and eces (valeric acid,skatole, indole).

US Greehuse Gas Ivetry r Agricultural Emissis (Surce: EPA, 2007a)

Greehuse Gas Surce Thusad Ts Thusad Ts Co2

Equivalet

Methane (CH4) Total 8,459.14 17,770

Enteric ermentation 5,886.34 12,360

Manure management 2,167.14 4,550

Other 406.75 860

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Total 1,333.80 41,350

Agriculture soil management 1,298.52 40,250

Manure management 34.17 1,050

Other 2.20 60


39/122

28


40/122

29

Eergy

ifap is more energy intensive than the traditional practiceo raising ood animals (e.g., cows grazing on pastures),requiring disproportionately large inputs o ossil uel,industrial ertilizers, and other synthetic chemicals. Forexample, the ratio o ossil uel energy inputs per unit oood energy producednot including ood processingand distributionaverages 3:1 or all US agricultural

products combined, but or industrially produced meatproducts the ratio can be as high as 35:1 (bee producedin eedlots generally has a particularly unavorable energybalance) (Horrigan et al., 2002).

Cmmissiers Cclusis

The number o arms that raise livestock has allendramatically while the total number o arm animalsraised in the US each year has remained relatively constant(Gollehon et al., 2001). ifap has made this possiblewith signicant gains in production eciency by most

measures: on a per animal basis, todays arm animalrequires less eed, produces less manure, and reachesmarket weight much aster than arm animals producedon the small amily arm o50 years ago. The result is thatthe price consumers pay or meat, poultry, dairy, and eggproducts at the grocery store or in restaurants is cheaper inreal terms (adjusted or infation) than it was even severalyears ago.

The downside oifap practices is that they haveproduced an expanding array o deleterious environmentaleects on local and regional water, air, and soil resources.

Those eects impose costs on the society at large that arenot internalized in the price paid at the retail counteror meat, poultry, dairy, or egg products.

The large concentration o animals on the typicalindustrial arm presents a major waste managementproblem. The volumes o manure are so large thattraditional land disposal methods can be impractical andenvironmentally threatening. Excess nutrients in manurecontaminate surace and groundwater resources. Today,

over a million people are estimated to take their drinkingwater rom groundwater that shows moderate or severecontamination with nitrogen-containing pollutants(Nolan and Hitt, 2006), mostly due to the heavy use oagricultural ertilizers and high rates o application oanimal waste.

The location oifap acilities near each other andthe waste they discharge untreated into the environmentexacerbate their environmental impact. A single hogifapacility, or example, produces manure in an amountequivalent to the sewage fow o an entire Americantown. Pound or pound, pigs produce our times thewaste o a human. Consequently, a single ifap housing5,000 pigs produces the same volume o raw sewage asa town o20,000 , but the ifap acility does not havea sewage treatment plant (Walker et al., 2005). TheCommission believes that to protect against urtherenvironmental degradation, there is a need or bettermanagement practices, more protective zoning, andimproved monitoring and enorcement oifap acilities.In addition, the Commission recommends a ull lie cycleanalysis to ully assess the ecological impacts oifapacilities.

Impacts Aimal Agriculture

i Yakima Valley, Washigt

The state o Washington has some

o the toughest environmental

protection laws in the country, but

you wouldnt know it i you live in

Yakima Valley, says longtime resident

and amily armer, Helen Reddout.

Reddout is credited by many as one

o the rst environmentalists to bring

national attention to the issue o

industrialized animal agriculture and

its eects on the environment andpublic health.

Reddout has called Yakima Valley

home or more than 50 years. She

raised her amily, tended her cherry

trees, and taught at the local school

or most o that time. It wasnt until

a large dairy operation opened near

her amily arm that Reddout became

an outspoken critic o what she calls

actory arms.

Reddout remembers the rst

time she was directly aected by

a concentrated animal eeding

operation. It was 2:00 in the morning

when she was awakened by what she

describes as a hideous smell oozing

rom the window. Her neighbor

was using nearby land as a spray

eld to dispose o manure. The next

morning, There in the middle o

the eld was a manure gun spraying

huge streams o gray-green sewage

onto the already oversaturated

eld the ammonia smell was so

strong it made me gasp. When shenoticed much o the liquid manure

was running o into a drainage

ditch, Reddout began to worry

about her well water. Subsequent

tests revealed her drinking well was

contaminated with nitrates, although

whether her neighbor is directly to

blame has not been proved.

In Washington, as in many other

parts o the United States, the

number o dairies is shrinking while

their size is increasing. Between 1989

and 2002, the number o dairies in

western Washington dropped rom

more than 1,000 to about 500 while

the average herd grew rom 30 cows

in the 1950s to 350 today. As o

2002, there were just 160 dairies in

eastern Washington, 71 o them in

Yakima County alone.

Dairy industry leaders poin

comission pew report: putting meaton the table:industrial farm animal productionin america

Documents