IATP Hog Report - Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 8 This report exposes the darker side of our country's "path toward industrialization." It offers a variety of factual data and observations that suggest that our relatively short-lived experiment with factory-style farming for the production of food has gone awry. Its conclusion is that the unintended consequences of factory hog farms and confined animal feeding operations in general are reaching critical and ominous proportions. http://www.iatp.org/hogreport/sec8.html (2 of 3)2/27/2006 3:50:18 AM What can private foundations do about the alarming issues raised in this report? Why should we care? Perhaps the greatest asset of private foundations is the freedom they have, coupled with limited resources, to respond creatively to issues of values, ethics, public policy, and human welfare that others don't have the courage, political will, sensibility, or power to address. Who is speaking out about the harmful effects of these large-scale, factory style, industrial farms? Some include, independent farmers (some of whom are quoted in this report), who oppose the trend toward CAFO's and contract-farming; residents of local counties in which these factory farms are active; a relatively small number of environmental groups; animal welfare groups; and a handful of university-based public health researchers. Are these people credible? Yes, for the most part. Many of the farmers in this chorus are literally fighting for their economic survival. Who are the apologists for factory hog farms? They are a very small number of corporations that have masterfully achieved dominance in livestock and poultry production during the last 20 years; their contract growers; their hired mouthpiece, the Farm Bureau, and the US Department of Agriculture. At the risk of being crass, which of these two groups has the most power? Is there any wonder why we have not heard more about the ethical, economic and public policy questions raised in Halverson's report? And as long as we can buy lean and cheap pork chops at our conveniently located supermarket, who cares? This report documents a multitude of reasons for caring about this issue: cutting-edge public health issues with large-scale human implications (e. g., the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria); environmental quality and health (e.g., contamination of groundwater supplies, the adverse effects of airborne compounds on human health and the viability of other forms of life); the sustainability of rural communities and their often fragile economies; the welfare and humane treatment of the animals that are bred and raised by these extreme and unnatural methods; and the long-term supply, cost, and security of our food sources; to mention a few. This
Section 8 report presents strong evidence that these catastrophic effects are already happening and that the deck is stacked against those questioning the safety and sustainability of factory style hog farm operations. But what can private foundations, specifically, do? Why should private foundations get involved with this issue, at this time? Our experience tells us that a relatively small amount of grant support can go a long way to encourage, support, and legitimize the voices of farmers, neighbors, scientists, activists, and policy-makers. Despite their obvious differences, these interested parties share a common quest: to be heard and to get their concerns placed on the public agenda for closer scrutiny and informed debate. We commend the way this report raises the tough and compelling issues associated with factory style hog and other livestock farming operations. If you and your foundation are interested in participating in future efforts to explore these issues and their resolution, we encourage you to contact the representative of any of the foundations listed Appendix D of this report. Joseph E. Kilpatrick, Program Officer, Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, Winston-Salem, North Carolina Victor De Luca, President, Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, New York, New York Ted Quaday, Program Director, Farm Aid, Somerville, Massachusetts John Powers, Board Member, Educational Foundation of America, Westport, Connecticut Back to Top of Page | Next Section | Table of Contents http://www.iatp.org/hogreport/sec8.html (3 of 3)2/27/2006 3:50:18 AM
Page 1 and 2:
IATP Hog Report http://www.iatp.org
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Marlene Halverson
Page 5 and 6:
Section 0 The choice as to whether
Page 7 and 8:
Section 0 massive quantities of gro
Page 9 and 10:
Section 0 quantities far exceeding
Page 11 and 12:
Section 0 hog factories avoid the e
Page 13 and 14:
Section 0 Alternatively, we can try
Page 15 and 16:
Section 1 I. Are Independent Farmer
Page 17 and 18:
Section 1 programs were put in plac
Page 19 and 20:
Section 1 and consolidating their o
Page 21 and 22:
Section 1 Farm Credit [Service] is
Page 23 and 24:
Section 1 results despite a $58.6 m
Page 25 and 26:
Section 1 sell on the spot or cash
Page 27 and 28:
Section 1 costs to ignoring the fac
Page 29 and 30:
Section 1 Rationale: Independent ho
Page 31 and 32:
Section 1 animals and definition of
Page 33 and 34:
Section 1 Agriculture. 16 U.S. Depa
Page 35 and 36:
Section 1 46-47 Ostmeyer, A. (1999,
Page 37 and 38:
Section 1 77 Thornsbury, S., Kambha
Page 39 and 40:
Section 2 Safety Some Strategies an
Page 41 and 42:
Section 2 oxygen for complete fuel
Page 43 and 44:
Section 2 cure bacterial diseases b
Page 45 and 46:
Section 2 reach humans, including:
Page 47 and 48:
Section 2 microorganisms in the env
Page 49 and 50:
Section 2 bacteria, but it saw no r
Page 51 and 52:
Section 2 use of penicillin and tet
Page 53 and 54:
Section 2 few problems adjusting. M
Page 55 and 56:
Section 2 The Swedish thus regard i
Page 57 and 58:
Section 2 marketed, discounted to t
Page 59 and 60:
Section 2 destroyed, leaving behind
Page 61 and 62:
Section 2 and practices that make a
Page 63 and 64:
Section 2 of Minnesota, Biosystems
Page 65 and 66:
Section 2 41 Backström, L. (1999,
Page 67 and 68:
Section 2 Washington, DC: National
Page 69 and 70:
Section 2 96-98 National Research C
Page 71 and 72:
Section 2 SOU 1997:132 Del 2 (pdf-f
Page 73 and 74:
Section 2 147 Ault, D. (1994). A ge
Page 75 and 76:
Section 2 169 Ibid. 170 Ibid. http:
Page 77 and 78:
Section 3 Receiving minimal day-to-
Page 79 and 80:
Section 3 Hog Factory Impacts on Gr
Page 81 and 82:
Section 3 In 1998, the U.S. Geologi
Page 83 and 84:
Section 3 and creating setback dist
Page 85 and 86:
Section 3 of nutrients in the Bay c
Page 87 and 88:
Section 3 that lagoons begin to lea
Page 89 and 90:
Section 3 native organic matter poo
Page 91 and 92:
Section 3 Help preserve local contr
Page 93 and 94:
Section 3 25 Ritter, W.F. & Chirnsi
Page 95 and 96:
Section 3 American Prospect online,
Page 97 and 98:
Section 3 68 Understanding the Poll
Page 99 and 100:
Section 4 IV. Part of the Pig Reall
Page 101 and 102:
Section 4 centuries. In 1713, an It
Page 103 and 104:
Section 4 and 44 control participan
Page 105 and 106:
Section 4 out carbon dioxide. Plant
Page 107 and 108:
Section 4 additional systems in the
Page 109 and 110:
Section 4 pollution-reducing option
Page 111 and 112:
Section 4 18 Robbin Marks, Natural
Page 113 and 114:
Section 4 59-61 Bird, E. and Strang
Page 115 and 116:
Section 5 made up of the trust and
Page 117 and 118:
Section 5 designation" for their pr
Page 119 and 120:
Section 5 Pollution Shopping by Cor
Page 121 and 122:
Section 5 environmental laws, and a
Page 123 and 124:
Section 5 alternatives to the propo
Page 125 and 126:
Section 5 Corporate farm operations
Page 127 and 128:
Section 5 The EPA further concluded
Page 129 and 130:
Section 5 ❍ an investigation of t
Page 131 and 132:
Section 5 decision by Judge Kornman
Page 133 and 134:
Section 5 and other training for it
Page 135 and 136:
Section 5 grounds that it was a pub
Page 137 and 138:
Section 5 · Operating a facility h
Page 139 and 140:
Section 5 portions of an industrial
Page 141 and 142:
Section 5 practices that favor the
Page 143 and 144:
Section 5 investors in animal facto
Page 145 and 146: Section 5 Health Department. Herald
Page 147 and 148: Section 5 55 RESPEC. (1998, August)
Page 149 and 150: Section 5 to Eric Nixon, regarding
Page 151 and 152: Section 5 126 Ozark Sierra Club. (2
Page 153 and 154: Section 6 | Next Section | | Table
Page 155 and 156: Section 6 about the effects of inte
Page 157 and 158: Section 6 Today, there is a special
Page 159 and 160: Section 6 persist in milk and some
Page 161 and 162: Section 6 In some of the largest ho
Page 163 and 164: Section 6 Population density inside
Page 165 and 166: Section 6 widespread abuses of anim
Page 167 and 168: Section 6 Weaning pigs when they ar
Page 169 and 170: Section 6 Ironically, the creation
Page 171 and 172: Section 6 compatible alternatives t
Page 173 and 174: Section 6 Office. 13 Dawkins, M.S.
Page 175 and 176: Section 6 37 Broom, D.M., Dantzer,
Page 177 and 178: Section 6 IPVS Special Report. B Ph
Page 179 and 180: Section 6 Obstacles and opportuniti
Page 181 and 182: Section 6 http://www.iatp.org/hogre
Page 183 and 184: Section 7 The Campaign for Family F
Page 185 and 186: Section 7 struggle to compete with
Page 187 and 188: Section 7 The South Carolina Coasta
Page 189 and 190: Section 7 groups can litigate again
Page 191 and 192: Section 7 Clean Water Fund has been
Page 193 and 194: Section 7 sustainable production me
Page 195: Section 8 VIII. Funder to Funder Su
Page 199 and 200: Section 9 no unwarrantably limit th
Page 201 and 202: Contacts Contacts Alabama Arkansas
Page 203 and 204: Contacts Georgia Daphne Walker Ohoo
Page 205 and 206: Contacts Teresa Opheim Iowa Environ
Page 207 and 208: Contacts Dave Dempsey Michigan Envi
Page 209 and 210: Contacts Montana Jim Jensen Montana
Page 211 and 212: Contacts Mark Trechock Dakota Resou
Page 213 and 214: Contacts Bill Berry Concerned Citiz
Page 215 and 216: Contacts John H. Davidson Midwest A
Page 217 and 218: Contacts Larry Barker Buckingham Ci
Page 219 and 220: Contacts Dan Heilig Wyoming Outdoor
Page 221 and 222: Contacts Rob Perks/Todd Robins Publ
Page 223 and 224: Funders Mary Stake Hawker, Director
Page 225 and 226: Funders Vic DeLuca Jessie Smith Noy
Page 227 and 228: Photo Galleries People Back to Main
Page 229 and 230: disease Photo Gallery: Disease Back
Page 231 and 232: Flooding Photo Gallery: Flooding Ba
Page 233 and 234: Cartoons Cartoons Back to Main Page
Page 235 and 236: cartoon1 Previous / Next Index Page
Page 237 and 238: cartoon11 Previous / Next Index Pag
Page 239 and 240: cartoon13 Previous / Next Index Pag
Page 247 and 248:
cartoon9 Previous Index Page http:/
show all

IATP Hog Report - Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?