Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in America

ContentsForeword by John CarliniiPreface by Robert P. MartinviHow the Current System DevelopedxPublic Health 10Environmental Risks 22Animal Welfare 30Rural America 40Conclusion: Toward Sustainable Animal Agriculture 50The Recommendations of the Commission 56References 96Endnotes 104Final Report Acknowledgments 106

Foreword byJohn Carlin,Former Governorof Kansasii

I have witnessed dramatic changes in animal agriculture over the past severaldecades. When I was growing up, my family operated a dairy farm, which notonly raised cows to produce milk, but crops to feed the cows and wheat as acash crop. When I took over management of the farm from my father in themid-sixties, on average we milked about 40 cows and farmed about 800 acres.We were one of some 30 such dairy operations in Saline County, Kansas.Today in Saline County and most Kansas counties, it is nearly impossibleto find that kind of diversified farm. Most have given way to large, highlyspecialized, and highly productive animal producing operations. In SalineCounty today, there is only one dairy farm, yet it and similar operations acrossthe state produce more milk from fewer cows statewide than I and all of mypeers did when I was actively farming.Industrial farm animal production (ifap) is a complex subject involvingindividuals, communities, private enterprises and corporations large and small,consumers, federal and state regulators, and the public at large. All Americanshave a stake in the quality of our food, and we all benefit from a safe andaffordable food supply. We care about the well-being of rural communities,the integrity of our environment, the public’s health, and the health andwelfare of animals. Many disciplines contribute to the development andanalysis of ifap—including economics, food science, animal sciences,agronomy, biology, genetics, nutrition, ethics, agricultural engineering, andveterinary medicine. The industrial farm has brought about tremendousincreases in short-term farm efficiency and affordable food, but its rapiddevelopment has also resulted in serious unintended consequences andiii

questions about its long-term sustainability.I initially hesitated to get involved in the work of the Commission,given that the nature of partisan politics today makes the discussion of anyissue facing our country extremely challenging. In the end, I accepted thechairmanship because there is so much at stake for both agriculture and thepublic at large. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production(pcifap) sought to develop recommendations that protect what is best aboutAmerican agriculture and to help to ensure its sustainability for the future.Our work focuses on four areas of concern that we believe are key to thatfuture: public health, environment, animal welfare, and the vitality of ruralcommunities; specifically, we focus on how these areas have been impactedby industrial farm animal production.The Commission consists of a very diverse group of individuals,remarkably accomplished in their fields, who worked together to achieveconsensus on potential solutions to the challenge of assuring a safe andsustainable food supply. We sought broad input from stakeholders and citizensaround the country. We were granted the resources needed to do our work,and the independence to ensure that our conclusions were carefully drawnand objective in their assessment of the available information informed by theCommissioners’ own expertise and experience. I thank each and every one fortheir valuable service and all citizens who contributed to the process.iv

Finally, we were supported by a group of staff who worked tirelessly toensure that Commissioners had access to the most current information andexpertise in the fields of concern to our deliberations. We thank them for theirhard work, their patience, and their good humor.John W. CarlinChairman

Preface byRobert P. Martin,Executive Director,Pew Commissionon Industrial FarmAnimal Productionvi

Over the last 50 years, the method of producing food animals in the UnitedStates has changed from the extensive system of small and medium-sizedfarms owned by a single family to a system of large, intensive operations wherethe animals are housed in large numbers in enclosed structures that resembleindustrial buildings more than they do a traditional barn. That change hashappened primarily out of view of consumers but has come at a cost to theenvironment and a negative impact on public health, rural communities, andthe health and well-being of the animals themselves.The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (pcifap)was funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the JohnsHopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to investigate the problemsassociated with industrial farm animal production (ifap) operations and tomake recommendations to solve them. Fifteen Commissioners with diversebackgrounds began meeting in early 2006 to start their evidence-based reviewof the problems caused by ifap.Over the next two years, the Commission conducted 11 meetingsand received thousands of pages of material submitted by a wide range ofstakeholders and interested parties. Two hearings were held to hear fromthe general public with an interest in ifap issues. Eight technical reportswere commissioned from leading academics to provide information in theCommission’s areas of interest. The Commissioners themselves broughtexpertise 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 feedlot.vii

There have been some serious obstacles to the Commission completing itsreview and approving consensus recommendations. The agriculture industryis not monolithic, and the formation of this Commission was greeted byindustrial agriculture with responses ranging from open hostility to warycooperation. In fact, while some industrial agriculture representatives wererecommending potential authors for the technical reports to Commissionstaff, other industrial agriculture representatives were discouraging those sameauthors from assisting us by threatening to withhold research funding fortheir college or university. We found significant influence by the industry atevery turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, governmentregulation, and enforcement.At the end of his second term, President Dwight Eisenhower warned thenation about the dangers of the military-industrial complex—an unhealthyalliance between the defense industry, the Pentagon, and their friends onCapitol Hill. Now, the agro-industrial complex—an alliance of agriculturecommodity groups, scientists at academic institutions who are paid by theindustry, and their friends on Capitol Hill—is a concern in animal foodproduction in the 21st century.The present system of producing food animals in the United States isnot sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health anddamage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals weraise for food.viii

Industrial farm animal production (ifap) encompasses all aspects of breeding,feeding, raising, and processing animals or their products for humanconsumption. Producers rely on high-throughput production to grow thousandsof animals of one species (often only a few breeds of that species and only onegenotype within the breed) and for one purpose (such as pigs, layer hens, broilerchickens, turkeys, beef, or dairy cattle).ifap’s strategies and management systems are a product of the post–Industrial Revolution era, but unlike other industrial systems, ifap is dependenton complex biological and ecological systems for its basic raw material.And the monoculture common to ifap facilities has diminished importantbiological and genetic diversity in pursuit of higher yields and greater efficiency(Steinfeld et al., 2006).The origins of agriculture go back more than 10,000years to the beginning of the Neolithic era, when humansfirst 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 food supply in support of larger humanpopulations. With agriculture came concepts of personalproperty and personal inheritance, and hierarchicalsocieties were organized. In short, crop cultivation ledto a global revolution for humankind, marked by theemergence of complex societies and the use of technology.The goal of agriculture then, as now, was to meethuman demand for food, and as the population grew,early agriculturalists found new ways to increase yield,decrease costs of production, and sustain productivity.Over the centuries, improved agricultural methodsbrought about enormous yield gains, all to keep up withthe needs of an ever-increasing human population. In the18th century, for example, it took nearly five acres of landto feed one person for one year, whereas today it takesjust half an acre (Trewavas, 2002)—a tenfold increase inproductivity.There is reason to wonder, however, whether thesedramatic gains, and particularly those of the last 50 years,can be sustained for the next 50 years as the world’shuman population doubles, climate change shifts rainfallpatterns and intensifies drought cycles, fossil fuels becomemore expensive, and the developing nations of the worldrapidly improve their standards of living.Enormous Yield GainsAgriculture in North America predated the arrival ofthe first Europeans. The peoples of the Americas hadlong been cultivating crops such as corn, tobacco, andpotatoes—crops that even today represent more than halfof the value of crops produced in the United States. Theydeveloped the technology to fertilize crops as a meansto meet the nutrient needs of their crops in the relativelypoor soils of much of the Americas. The first Europeansettlers—often after their own crops and farming methodsfailed—learned to grow crops from the original peoplesof the Americas.Subsistence farming was the nation’s primaryoccupation well into the 1800s. In 1863, for example, therewere more than six million farms and 870 million acresunder cultivation. The mechanization of agriculture beganin the 1840s with Cyrus McCormick’s invention of thereaper, which increased farm yields and made it possible tomove from subsistence farming to commercial agriculture.McCormick’s reaper was a miracle—it could harvest fiveto six acres daily compared with the two acres covered byfarmers using the most advanced hand tools of the day.In anticipation of great demand, McCormick headed westto the young prairie town of Chicago, where he set up afactory and, by 1860, sold a quarter of a million reapers.The development of other farm machines followed 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 of other inventions.New technologies for transportation and foodpreservation soon emerged. The railroad and refrigerationsystems allowed farmers to get their products to marketsacross great distances to serve the rapidly growing citiesof the day. Locomotives carried cattle to stockyards inKansas City and Chicago where they were sold andslaughtered. The growing urban centers created large

and growing markets, which benefited from the railroadsand refrigerated railcars that made year-round transportof fresh and frozen <strong>meat</strong> products feasible. Expandingproduction to meet growing demand was facilitated bythe agriculture policy of the federal government, whichfocused on increasing crop yields.Agriculture in the Twentieth CenturyFarm yields reached a plateau in the first half of the 20thcentury, slowed by global conflict, the Dust Bowl, andthe Great Depression. After World War 11, America’s newaffluence and growing concern for feeding the world’spoor led to the “Green Revolution,” the worldwidetransformation of agriculture that led to significantincreases in agricultural production from 1940 throughthe 1960s. This transformation relied on a regime ofgenetic selection, irrigation, and chemical fertilizers andpesticides developed by researchers such as NormanBorlaug and funded by a consortium of donors led by theFord and Rockefeller foundations.The Green Revolution dramatically increasedagricultural productivity, even outpacing the demandsof the rapidly growing world population. The massiveincrease in corn yields from the 1940s through the 1980sprovides a case in point: a farmer in 1940 might haveexpected to get 70– 80 bushels of corn per acre, whereasby 1980, farms routinely produced 200 bushels peracre, thanks to genetic selection, chemical fertilizer andpesticides, and irrigation regimes developed by GreenRevolution scientists. Similarly, the developing world hasseen cereal production—not only corn, but also wheat andrice—increase dramatically, with a doubling in yields overthe last 40 years.As a result of these significant increases in output, cornand grains became inexpensive and abundant, suitableas a staple to feed not only humans but animals as well.Inexpensive corn thus made large-scale animal agriculturemore profitable and facilitated the evolution of intensivelivestock feeding from an opportunistic method ofmarketing corn to a profitable industry.The Green Revolution would later prove to haveunwanted ecological impacts, such as aquifer depletion,groundwater contamination, and excess nutrient runoff,largely because of its reliance on monoculture crops,irrigation, application of pesticides, and use of nitrogenand phosphorous fertilizers (Tilman et al., 2002). Theseunwanted environmental consequences now threaten toreverse many of the yield increases attributed to the GreenRevolution in much of North America.American Meat Expenditures, 1970–2005 (Source: Livestock Marketing Information Center)5.04.54.0Percent of Disposable Personal Income3.53.02.52.01.51.0In 1970, the average Americanspent 4.2% of his or her incometo buy 194 lbs of red <strong>meat</strong> andpoultry annually.In 2005, Americans spent, onaverage, 2.1% of their annualincome to buy 221 lbs of red<strong>meat</strong> and poultry.0.50.01970 1980 19902000Year

The Animal Production Farm as FactoryIntensive animal production began in the 1930s withAmerica’s highly mechanized swine slaughterhouses.Henry Ford even credited the slaughterhouses for givinghim the idea to take the swine “disassembly” line ideaand put it to work as an assembly line for automobilemanufacturing. Later, the ready availability of inexpensivegrain and the rapid growth of an efficient transportationsystem made the United States the birthplace for intensiveanimal agriculture.Paralleling the crop yield increases of the GreenRevolution, new technologies in farm animal managementemerged that made it feasible to raise livestock inhigher concentrations than were possible before. Aswith corn and cereal grains, modern industrial foodanimal production systems resulted in significant gainsin production efficiency. For example, since 1960, milkproduction has doubled, <strong>meat</strong> production has tripled, andegg production has increased fourfold (Delgado, 2003).While some of these increases are due to greater numbersof animals, genetic selection for improved production,coupled with specially formulated feeds that includeadditives of synthetic compounds, have contributedsignificantly as well. The measure of an animal’s efficiencyin converting feed mass into increased body mass—thefeed conversion ratio—has improved for all food animalspecies. The change has been most dramatic in chickens:in 1950, it took 84 days to produce a 5-pound chickenwhereas today it takes just 45 days (hsus, 2006 a).Intensive animal production and processing havebrought about significant change in American agricultureover the last two decades. The current trend in animalagriculture is to grow more in less space, use cost-efficientfeed, and replace labor with technology to the extentpossible. This trend toward consolidation, simplification,and specialization is consistent with many sectors ofthe American industrial economy. The diversified,independent, family-owned farms of 40 years agothat produced a variety of crops and a few animals aredisappearing as an economic entity, replaced by muchlarger, and often highly leveraged, farm factories. Theanimals that many of these farms produce are owned bythe <strong>meat</strong> packing companies from the time they are bornor hatched right through their arrival at the processingplant and from there to market. The packaged foodproducts are marketed far from the farm itself.These trends have been accompanied by significantchanges in the role of the farmer. More and more animalfarmers have contracts with “vertically integrated” 1 <strong>meat</strong>packing companies to provide housing and facilities toraise the animals from infancy to the time they go to theslaughterhouse. The grower does not own the animalsand frequently does not grow the crops to feed them. Theintegrator (company) controls all phases of production,including what and when the animals are fed. The poultryindustry was the first to integrate, beginning duringWorld War 11 with War Department contracts to supply<strong>meat</strong> for the troops. Much later, Smithfield Farms appliedthe vertical integration model to raising pork on a large

scale. Today, the swine and poultry industries are the mostvertically integrated, with a small number of companiesoverseeing most of the chicken <strong>meat</strong> and egg productionin the United States. In contrast, the beef cattle and dairyindustries exhibit very little or no vertical integration.Under the modern-day contracts between integratorsand growers, the latter are usually responsible fordisposition of the animal waste and the carcasses ofanimals that die before shipment to the processor. Thecosts of pollution and waste management are also thegrower’s responsibility. Rules governing waste handlingand disposal methods are defined by federal and stateagencies. Because state regulatory agencies are free to settheir own standards as long as they are at least as stringentas the federal rules, waste handling and disposal systemsoften vary from state to state. Because the integratorsare few in number and control much if not all of themarket, the grower often has little market power and maynot be able to demand a price high enough to cover thecosts of waste disposal and environmental degradation.These environmental costs are thereby “externalized” tothe general society and are not captured in the costs ofproduction nor reflected in the retail price of the product.Accompanying the trend to vertical integration isa marked trend toward larger operations. Dependingon their size and the operator’s choice, these industrialfarm animal production facilities may be called animalfeeding operations (afos) or concentrated animal feedingoperations (cafos) for US Environmental ProtectionAgency (epa) regulatory purposes. The epa defines anafo as a lot or facility where (1) animals have been, are,or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained fora total of 45 days or more in a 12-month period; and (2)crops, vegetation, forage growth, or postharvest residuesare not sustained in the normal growing season over anyportion of the lot or facility. cafos are distinguished fromthe more generic afos by their larger number of animalsor by either choosing or having that designation imposedbecause of the way they handle their animal waste. Afacility of a sufficient size to be called a cafo can opt outof that designation if it so chooses by stating that it doesnot discharge into navigable waters or directly into watersof the United States. For the purposes of this report, theterm industrial farm animal production (ifap) refersto the most intensive practices (such practices includegestation and farrowing crates in swine production,battery cages for egg-laying hens, and the like) regardlessof the size of the facility. Facilities of many different sizescan be industrial, not just those designated as cafos bythe epa. 2Regardless of whether a farm is officially listed as acafo, ifap has greatly increased the number of animalsper operation. To illustrate, over the last 14 years, theaverage number of animals per swine operation hasincreased 2.8 times, for egg production 2.5 times, forbroilers 2.3 times, and for cattle 1.6 times (Tilman et al.,2002). More animals mean greater economies of scale andlower cost per unit. In addition, ifap facility operators,in many cases, gain greater control over the factorsthat influence production such as weather, disease, andnutrition. Thus, production of the desired end producttypically requires less time.But the economic efficiency of ifap systems may notbe entirely attributable to animal production efficiencies.Nor are the economies of scale that result from theconfinement of large numbers of animals entirelyresponsible for the apparent economic success of the ifapsystem. Rather, according to a recent Tufts Universitystudy, the overproduction of agricultural crops such ascorn and soybeans due to US agricultural policy since1996 has, until recently, driven the market price of thosecommodities well below their cost of production (Starmerand Wise, 2007 a), resulting in a substantial discount toifap facility operators for their feed. The Tufts researchersalso point out that, because of weak environmentalenforcement, ifap facilities receive a further subsidy inthe form of externalized environmental costs. In total,the researchers estimate that the current hog ifap facilityreceives a subsidy worth just over $10 per hundredweight,or just over $24 for the average hog, when compared withthe true costs of production (Starmer and Wise, 2007 a;Starmer and Wise, 2007 b).Despite their proven efficiency in producing foodanimals, ifap facilities have a number of inherent andunique risks that may affect their sustainability. Whilesome cafos have been sited properly with regard tolocal geological features, watersheds, and ecologicalsensitivity, others are located in fragile ecosystems, suchas on flood plains in North Carolina and over shallowdrinking water aquifers in the Delmarva Peninsula andnortheastern Arkansas. The waste management practicesof ifap facilities can have substantial adverse affects onair, water, and soils. Another major risk stems from theroutine use of specially formulated feeds that incorporateantibiotics, other antimicrobials, and hormones to preventdisease and induce rapid growth. The use of low doses ofantibiotics as food additives facilitates the rapid evolutionand proliferation of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.The resulting potential for “resistance reservoirs” andinterspecies transfer of resistance determinants is a highprioritypublic health concern. Finally, ifap facilitiesrely on selective breeding to enhance specific traits suchas growth rate, <strong>meat</strong> texture, and taste. This practice,however, results in a high degree of inbreeding, whichreduces biological and genetic diversity and represents aglobal threat to food security, according to the Food andAgriculture Organization (fao) of the United Nations(Steinfeld et al., 2006).The potential health and environmental impacts ofifap take on more urgent concern in the context of theglobal market for <strong>meat</strong> and <strong>meat</strong> products, consideringthat world population is expected to increase from thecurrent four to five billion to nine to ten billion by 2050.Most of that growth will occur in low- and middle-incomecountries, where rising standards of living are acceleratingthe “nutrition transition” from a diet of grains, beans,and other legumes to one with more animal protein.The demand for <strong>meat</strong> and poultry is therefore expectedto increase nearly 35% by 2015 (Steinfeld et al., 2006).To meet that rising demand, the cafo model has

ecome increasingly attractive. The spread of ifap to thedeveloping world brings the benefit of rapid production of<strong>meat</strong>, but at the cost of environmental and public health,costs that may be exacerbated by institutional weaknessesand governance problems common in developingcountries.Commissioners’ ConclusionsAnimal agriculture has experienced “warp speed” growthover the last 50 years, with intensification resulting in analmost logarithmic increase in numbers. The availabilityof high-yield and inexpensive grains has fueled thisincrease and allowed for continually increasing ratesof growth in order to feed the burgeoning humanpopulation. However, diminished fossil fuel supplies,global climate change, declining freshwater availability,and reduced availability of arable land all suggest thatagricultural productivity gains in the next 50 years may befar less dramatic than the rates of change seen over the last100 years.As discussed, the transformation of traditional animalhusbandry to the industrial food animal productionmodel and the widespread adoption of ifap facilities haveled to widely available and affordable <strong>meat</strong>, poultry, dairy,and eggs. As a result, animal-derived food products arenow inexpensive relative to disposable income, a majorreason that Americans eat more of them on a per capitabasis than anywhere else in the world. According to theUS Department of Agriculture (usda), the average cost ofall food in the United States is less than ten percent of theaverage American’s net income, even though on a cost-percaloriebasis Americans are paying more than the citizensof many other countries (Frazão et al., 2008).While industrial farm animal production has benefits,it brings with it growing concerns for public health,the environment, animal welfare, and impacts on ruralcommunities. In the sections that follow, we examine theunintended consequences of intensive animal agricultureand its systems. The Commission’s goal is to understandthose impacts and to propose recommendations to addressthem in ways that can ensure a safe system of animalagriculture while satisfying the <strong>meat</strong> and poultry needsof a nation that will soon reach 400 million Americans.Cost per calorie rises as income levels rise (Source: consumption expenditure data fromEuromonitor International 2006; cost per calorie calculated based on calorie consumptiondata from FAOSTAT 2007 [Frazão et al., 2008])352005 cost per 100 calories, US cents30252015105005,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000Per capita total expenditures (income proxy) across 67 countries (US$), 2005

The Global Impact of theUS Industrial Food AnimalProduction ModelThe concentrated animal feedingoperation (CAFO) model ofproduction in the United Stateshas developed over the years intoa fine-tuned factory operation.Recently, the CAFO model hasbegun to spread to all corners ofthe world, especially the developingworld. This spread brings many ofthe benefits that made it successfulin the developed world, but also theproblems. Those problems are oftenmagnified by structural deficienciesthat may exist in a country wherelaw and government cannot keeppace with the country’s adoption ofanimal production and other newtechnologies.Developing countries adoptthe CAFO model for two reasons.The first is that as people becomewealthier, they eat more <strong>meat</strong>.From the 1970s through the 1990s,the consumption of <strong>meat</strong> in thedeveloping world increased by 70million metric tons (Delgado et al.,1999). These countries thereforeneed to produce more animalprotein than ever before. And aspopulations grow, especially in Asia,land becomes scarce and the CAFOmodel becomes more attractive(Tao, 2003). Second, multinationalcorporations involved in the animalprotein industry scour the worldlooking for countries with cheaplabor and large expanses of landavailable to cultivate feed for foodanimals (Martin, 2004). When theyfind these areas, they bring along theproduction model that served themwell in developed countries.This all sounds well and good ifthe CAFO model allows a countryto increase its level of developmentand feed its citizens, but oftenthese countries are not equipped todeal with the problems that can beassociated with CAFOs. For example,CAFOs produce large amounts ofpollution if they are not managedand regulated properly. Even inmany areas of the United States,we are barely able to deal with theharmful effects of CAFOs. In thedeveloping world, governmentsand workers often do not havethe ability or resources to enforceenvironmental, worker safety, oranimal welfare laws, if they evenexist (Tao, 2003). Or if a country doeshave the capacity, it often choosesnot to enforce regulations in thebelief that the economic benefits of aCAFO offset any detrimental impacts(Neirenberg, 2003).But unregulated CAFO facilitiescan have disastrous consequences forthe people living and working aroundthem. Rivers used for washing anddrinking may be polluted. Workersmay be exposed to diseases andother hazards that they neitherrecognize nor understand because oftheir limited education.As the Commission looks at theimpact of the industrial model in theUnited States, we must not forgetthat these types of operations arebeing built all around the globe,often on a larger scale and with lessregulation.A villager locks the truck barrier afterpigs loaded in a pig farm on January17, 2008, in the outskirts of LishuCounty of Jilin Province, northeastChina. Jilin Provincial governmentearmarks 5.9 million yuan towardsow subsidies; each sow will gain100 yuan, in a bid to curb the soaringpork price, according to local media.

Public Health10

The potential public health effects associated with ifap must be examined inthe context of its potential effects on individuals and the population as a whole.These effects include disease and the transmission of disease, the potentialfor the spread of pathogens from animals to humans, and mental and socialimpacts. The World Health Organization (who) defines health as “a state ofcomplete physical, mental and social well-being” (who, 1992). This definitionis widely recognized in the developed world and is increasingly being adoptedby American employers.In ifap systems, large numbers of animals are raised together, usually inconfinement buildings, which may increase the likelihood for health issueswith the potential to affect humans, carried either by the animals or the largequantities of animal waste. The ifap facilities are frequently concentrated inareas where they can affect human population centers. Animal waste, whichharbors a number of pathogens and chemical contaminants, is usually leftuntreated or minimally treated, often sprayed on fields as fertilizer, raising thepotential for contamination of air, water, and soils. Occasionally, the impactcan be far worse. In one recent example, farm animal waste runoff from ifapfacilities was among the suspected causes of a 2006 Escherichia coli outbreakin which three people died and nearly 200 were sickened (cdc, 2006).Affected PopulationsHealth risks increase depending on the rate of exposure,which can vary widely. Those engaged directly withlivestock production, such as farmers, farm workers, andtheir families, typically have more frequent and moreconcentrated exposures to chemical or infectious agents.For others with less continuous exposure to livestock andlivestock facilities, the risk levels decline accordingly.Direct exposure is not the only health risk, however;health impacts often reach far beyond the ifap facility.Groundwater contamination, for example, can extendthroughout the aquifer, affecting drinking water suppliesat some distance from the source of contamination.Infectious agents, such as a novel (or new) avian influenzavirus, that arise in an ifap facility may be transmissiblefrom person to person in a community setting andwell beyond. An infectious agent that originates at anifap facility may persist through <strong>meat</strong> processing andcontaminate consumer food animal products, resulting ina serious disease outbreak far from the ifap facility.Monitoring is a basic component of strategies toprotect the public from harmful effects of contaminationor disease, yet ifap monitoring systems are inadequate.Current animal identification and <strong>meat</strong> productlabeling practices make it difficult or impossible to traceinfections to the source. Likewise, ifap workers, whomay serve as vectors carrying potential disease-causingorganisms from the animals they work with to the largercommunity, do not usually participate in public healthmonitoring, disease reporting, and surveillance programsbecause, as an agricultural activity, ifap is often exempt.Furthermore, migrant and visiting workers, many ofwhom are undocumented, present a particular challengeto adequate monitoring and surveillance because theirlegal status often makes them unwilling to participate inhealth monitoring programs.In general, public health concerns associated withifap include heightened risks of pathogens (disease- andnondisease-causing) passed from animals to humans;the emergence of microbes resistant to antibiotics andantimicrobials, due in large part to widespread use of11

antimicrobials for nontherapeutic purposes; food-bornedisease; worker health concerns; and dispersed impacts onthe adjacent community at large.Pathogen TransferThe potential for pathogen transfer from animals tohumans is increased in ifap because so many animalsare raised together in confined areas. ifap feed andanimal management methods successfully maximize theefficiency of <strong>meat</strong> or poultry production and shorten thetime it takes to reach market weight, but they also createa number of opportunities for pathogen transmissionto humans. Three factors account for the increasedrisk: prolonged worker contact with animals; increasedpathogen transmission in a herd or flock; and increasedopportunities for the generation of antibiotic-resistantbacteria or new strains of pathogens. Stresses induced byconfinement may also increase the likelihood of infectionand illness in animal populations.Fifty years ago, a US farmer who raised pigs orchickens might be exposed to several dozen animals forless than an hour a day. Today’s confinement facilityworker is often exposed to thousands of pigs or tensof thousands of chickens for eight or more hours eachday. And whereas sick or dying pigs might have beena relatively rare exposure event 50 years ago, today’sagricultural workers care for sick or dying animals dailyin their routine care of much larger herds and flocks.This prolonged contact with livestock, both healthy andill, increases agricultural workers’ risks of infection withzoonotic pathogens.Infectious DiseaseNumerous known infectious diseases can be transmittedbetween humans and animals; in fact, of the more than1,400 documented human pathogens, about 64% arezoonotic (Woolhouse and Gowtage-Sequeria, 2005;Woolhouse et al., 2001). In addition, new strains andtypes of infectious and transmissible agents are foundevery year. Among the many ways that infectious agentscan evolve to become more virulent or to infect peopleare numerous transmission events and co-infectionwith several strains of pathogens. For this reason,industrial farm animal production facilities that houselarge numbers of animals in very close quarters can bea source of new or more infectious agents. Healthy orasymptomatic animals may carry microbial agents thatcan infect and sicken humans, who may then spread theinfection to the community before it is discovered in theanimal population.Generation of Novel VirusesWhile transmission of new or novel viruses from animalsto humans, such as avian or swine influenza, seems arather infrequent event today (Gray et al., 2007; Myers,Olsen et al., 2007), the continual cycling of viruses andother animal pathogens in large herds or flocks increasesopportunities for the generation of novel viruses throughmutation or recombinant events that could result in moreefficient human-to-human transmission. In addition,as noted earlier, agricultural workers serve as a bridgingpopulation between their communities and the animalsin large confinement facilities (Myers et al., 2006; Saenzet al., 2006). Such novel viruses not only put the workersand animals at risk of infection but also may increase therisk of disease transmission to the communities where theworkers live.Food-Borne InfectionFood production has always involved the risk of microbialcontamination that can spread disease to humans, andthat risk is certainly not unique to ifap. However, thescale and methods common to ifap can significantlyaffect pathogen contamination of consumer foodproducts. All areas of <strong>meat</strong>, poultry, egg, and dairyproduction (e.g., manure handling practices, <strong>meat</strong>processing, transportation, and animal rendering) cancontribute to zoonotic disease and food contamination(Gilchrist et al., 2007). Several recent and high-profilerecalls involving E. Coli O157:H7 and Salmonella entericaserve as dramatic reminders of the risk.Food-borne pathogens can have dire consequenceswhen they do reach human hosts. A 1999 report estimatedthat E. Coli O157:H7 infections 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. ColiO157:H7–related illnesses in the United States wereestimated at $405 million annually: $370 million fordeaths, $30 million for medical care, and $5 millionfor lost productivity (Frenzen et al., 2005). Animalmanure, especially from cattle, is the primary sourceof these bacteria, and consumption of food and watercontaminated with animal wastes is a major route ofhuman infection.Because of the large numbers of animals in a typicalifap facility, pathogens can infect hundreds or thousandsof animals even though the infection rate may be fairlylow as a share of the total population. In some cases, itmay be very difficult to detect the pathogen; Salmonellaenterica (se), for example, is known to colonize theintestinal tract of birds without causing obvious disease(Suzuki, 1994), although the infected hen ovaries thentransfer the organism to the egg contents. Althoughthe frequency of se contamination in eggs is low (fewerthan 1 in 20,000 eggs), the large numbers of eggs—65billion—produced in the United States each year meansthat contaminated eggs represent a significant source forhuman exposure. Underscoring this point, the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention (cdc) estimatedthat se-contaminated eggs accounted for approximately180,000 illnesses in the United States in 2000 (SchroederZoonotic disease:A disease caused by a microbialagent that normally exists inanimals but that can infecthumans.13

et al., 2005). The potential advantage of ifap in thiscircumstance is that concentrated production andprocessing in fewer, larger facilities can result in improvedproduct safety if regulations are properly instituted andvigilantly enforced.Feed and Pathogen RiskFeed formulation further influences pathogen risk becausethe feeds for confined animals are significantly differentfrom the forage traditionally available to poultry, swine,or cattle. These feeds have been modified to:• Reduce the time needed to reach market weight;• Increase the efficiency of feed conversion—the amountof food converted to animal protein (rather thanmanure); and• Ensure the survivability and uniformity of animals.Other changes in modern animal feeds are theextensive recycling of animal fats and proteins throughrendering and the addition of industrial and animalwastes as well as antimicrobials (ams), including arsenicderivedcompounds (arsenicals). In some cases, theseadditives can be dangerous to human health, as illustratedby the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse) crisis inBritain in the early 1990s—scientists discovered that itresulted from the inclusion of brain and brainstem partsin the renderings that went into animal feeds. Since thatdiscovery, great care has been taken to eliminate brain andspinal cord material from animal renderings. However,the ongoing addition of antimicrobial agents to ifaplivestock foodstuffs to promote growth also promotes theemergence of resistant strains of pathogens, presenting asignificant risk to human health.Nontherapeutic Antimicrobial Useand ResistanceThe use of antibiotics for growth promotion began in the1940s when the poultry industry discovered that the use oftetracycline fermentation byproducts resulted in improvedgrowth (Stokstad and Jukes, 1958–1959). Though themechanism of this action was never fully understood,the practice of adding low levels of antibiotics and, morerecently, growth hormones to stimulate growth andimprove production and performance has continued overthe ensuing 50 years.In the 1990s, the public became aware of the threat ofantimicrobial resistance as the number of drug-resistantinfections increased in humans. However, antimicrobialresistance has been observed almost since the discovery ofpenicillin. In 2000, a who report on infectious diseasesexpressed alarm at the spread of multidrug-resistantinfectious disease agents and noted that a major source ofantimicrobial-resistant bacteria was food:Since the discovery of the growth-promotingand disease-fighting capabilities of antibiotics,farmers, fish-farmers and livestock producers haveused antimicrobials in everything from apples toaquaculture. Currently, only half of all antibiotics areslated for human consumption. The other 50% areused to treat sick animals, as growth promoters inlivestock, and to rid cultivated foodstuffs of variousdestructive organisms. This ongoing and oftenlow-level dosing for growth and prophylaxis inevitablyresults in the development of resistance in bacteriain or near livestock, and also heightens fears ofnew resistant strains “jumping” between species…(who, 2000)Despite increased recognition of the problem, theInfectious Disease Society of America (isda) recentlydeclared antibiotic-resistant infections to be an epidemicin the United States (Spellberg et al., 2008). The cdcestimated that 2 million people contract resistantinfections annually and, of those, 90,000 die. A decadeago, the Institute of Medicine estimated that antimicrobialresistance costs the United States between $4 and $5 billionannually, and these costs are certainly higher now as theproblem of resistance has grown and intensified worldwide(Harrison et al., 1998).Because bacteria reproduce rapidly, resistance candevelop relatively quickly in the presence of antimicrobialagents, and once resistance genes appear in the bacterialgene pool, they can be transferred to related and unrelatedbacteria. Therefore, increased exposure to antimicrobials(particularly at low levels) increases the pool of resistantorganisms and the risk of antimicrobial-resistantinfections. Consider the following:• Antimicrobials are readily available online orthrough direct purchase from the manufacturer ordistributor, allowing unrestricted access by farmers topharmaceuticals and chemicals without a prescriptionor veterinarian’s oversight; and• Some classes of antibiotics that are used to treat lifethreateninginfections in humans, such as penicillinsand tetracyclines, are allowed in animal feeds topromote animal growth.Groups attempting to estimate the amount ofantimicrobials used in food animal production areoften thwarted by varying definitions of “therapeutic,”“nontherapeutic,” and “growth-promoting.” For example,the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that 70%of antimicrobials in the United States are used in foodanimal production, whereas the Animal Health Instituteestimated closer to 30% (ahi, 2002; Mellon et al., 2001).Others have not bothered with an estimate because ofthe lack of both clear definitions and data (Mellon et al.,2001; who, 2000). A universally accepted definitionof the various types of use is necessary to estimateantimicrobial use and to formulate policy governingthe use of antimicrobials in food animals. The lack ofpublicly available validated information on the volume ofantimicrobial use as a feed additive leaves policymakersuninformed about the true state of antimicrobial usein food animal production and its relationship to thegrowing problem of antimicrobial resistance.Supporters of the use of antibiotics as growthAntimicrobial resistance:The result of microbial changesthat reduce or eliminate theeffectiveness of drugs.15

Endotoxin:A toxin that is present in abacteria cell and is releasedwhen the cell disintegrates. Itis sometimes responsible forthe characteristic symptoms ofa disease, such as botulism.promoters maintain that their use, along with othertechnologies, results in more affordable <strong>meat</strong> products forconsumers, decreased production costs, and less impact onthe environment as fewer animals are required to producea unit of <strong>meat</strong> product. However, it is not clear that theuse of antimicrobials in food is cost-effective, either interms of increased health care costs as a result of resistantinfections, or for the facility itself (Graham et al., 2007).Antimicrobial-resistant bacteria have been found bothin and downwind of ifap facilities (e.g., swine) but notupwind (Gibbs et al., 2004). Several groups have reviewedthe association between the use of low-level antimicrobialsin food animal production and the development ofantimicrobial resistance in humans (Teuber, 2001; Smith,Harris et al., 2002).Whatever the direct evidence, it is certain that theexposure of bacteria to antimicrobial agents selectsresistant bacteria that can replicate and persist. Suchbacteria from ifap facilities can reach humans throughmany routes, both direct (through food, water, air,or contact) and indirect (via transmission of resistancein the environmental pool of bacteria).Occupational Health Impacts ofIndustrial Farm Animal Productionifap facilities 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 asthma–like syndrome, mucousmembrane irritation, and noninfectious sinusitis. Anindividual’s specific response depends on characteristics ofthe inhaled irritants and on the individual’s susceptibility.In general, the symptoms are more frequent and severeamong smokers (Donham and Gustafson, 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 ofdusts 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 Gustafson, 1982;Donham et al., 1989).Another, more episodic, bioaerosol-related problemexperienced by about 30% of ifap facility workers isorganic 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 of dust for four or morehours (Rylander, 1987). Although its onset may bedelayed, the symptoms are more severe than thosedescribed above: fever, malaise, muscle aches, headache,cough, and tightness of the chest.In addition to dust, irritants such as gases are generatedinside farm buildings from the decomposition of animalurine and feces (ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, andmethane, among others) (Donham and Gustafson, 1982;Donham and Popendorf, 1985; Donham et al., 1995).The combination of dusts and gases in ifap facilities canrise to concentrations that may be acutely hazardous toboth human and animal health (Donham and Gustafson,1982).Decomposing manure produces at least 160 differentgases, of which hydrogen sulfide (H 2S), ammonia, carbondioxide, methane, and carbon monoxide are the mostpervasive (Donham et al., 1982a; Donham and Gustafson,1982; Donham et al., 1982b; Donham and Popendorf,1985; Donham et al., 1988). These gases may seep frompits under the building or they may be released bybacterial action in the urine and feces on the confinementhouse floor (one study showed that the latter accountedfor 40% of the ammonia measured in-building [Donhamand Gustafson, 1982]).Possibly the most dangerous gas common to ifapfacilities is hydrogen sulfide. It can be released rapidlywhen liquid manure slurry is agitated, an operationcommonly performed to suspend solids so that pitscan be emptied by pumping (Donham et al., 1982b;Osbern and Crapo, 1981). During agitation, H 2S levelscan soar within seconds from the usual ambient levels ofless than 5 ppm to lethal levels of over 500 ppm (Donhamet al., 1982b; Donham et al., 1988). Generally, the greaterthe agitation, the more rapid and larger amount of H 2Sreleased. Animals and workers have died or becomeseriously ill in swine ifap facilities when H 2S has risenfrom agitated manure in pits under the building.Hydrogen sulfide exposure is most hazardous when themanure pits are located beneath the houses, but an acutelytoxic environment can result if gases from outside storagefacilities backflow into a building (due to inadequate gastraps or other design faults) or if a worker enters a confinedstorage structure where gases have accumulated.16Antimicrobial ResistanceLife-threatening bacteria arebecoming more dangerous and drugresistant because of imprudentantibiotic use in humans as well asanimals, yet the federal governmentresponse to protect the efficacyof these drugs has been limited.For instance, the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is movingahead with approval of cefquinome,a highly potent antibiotic, for usein cattle despite strong oppositionfrom the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC), the AmericanMedical Association, and FDA’s ownadvisory board. Health experts areconcerned about the approval ofdrugs from this class of medicines foranimal use because they are one ofthe last defenses against many gravehuman infections. Moreover, in thisinstance, the drug proposed is tocombat a form of cow pneumonia forwhich several other treatment agentsare available.

Community Health Effectsand Vulnerable PopulationsCommunities near ifap facilities are subject to airemissions that, although lower in concentration, maysignificantly affect certain segments of the population.Those most vulnerable—children, the elderly, individualswith chronic or acute pulmonary or heart disorders—areat particular risk.The impact on the health of those living nearifap facilities has increasingly been the subject ofepidemiological research. Adverse community healtheffects from exposure to ifap air emissions fall intotwo categories: (1) respiratory symptoms, disease, andimpaired function, and (2) neurobehavioral symptomsand impaired function.Respiratory HealthFour large epidemiological studies have demonstratedstrong and consistent associations between ifap airpollution and asthma. Merchant and colleagues, in acountywide prospective study of 1,000 Iowa families,reported a high prevalence of asthma among farm childrenliving on farms that raise swine (44.1%) and, of those, onthe farms that add antibiotics to feed (55.8%) (Merchantet al., 2005). Most of the children lived on family-ownedifap facilities, and many either did chores or were exposedas bystanders to occupational levels of ifap air pollution.Mirabelli and colleagues published two papersdescribing a study of 226 North Carolina schoolsranging from 0.2 to 42 miles from the nearest ifapfacility (Mirabelli et al., 2006a; Mirabelli et al., 2006b).Children living within three miles of an ifap facility hadsignificantly higher rates of doctor-diagnosed asthma,used more asthma medication, and had more asthmarelatedemergency room visits and / or hospitalizationsthan children who lived more than three miles froman ifap facility. Their research also showed thatexposure to livestock odor varied by racial and economiccharacteristics, indicating an environmental justice issueamong the state’s swine farms (Mirabelli et al., 2006a).Sigurdarson and Kline studied children fromkindergarten through fifth grade in two rural Iowaschools, one located half a mile from an ifap facilityand the other distant from any large-scale agriculturaloperation (Sigurdarson and Kline, 2006). Children inthe school near the facility had a significantly increasedprevalence of doctor-diagnosed asthma, but there was nodifference between the two populations in the severity ofasthma. Potential biases among children living close tothe ifap included children who were more likely to liveon a farm (direct ifap exposure was not assessed) andwho more often lived in houses where parents smoked,but neither of these confounders explained the increasein asthma prevalence. The authors noted that physiciansresponsible for the medical care of these two groups ofchildren differed and, therefore, did not rule out physicianbias in asthma diagnosis.Radon and colleagues conducted a 2002–2004 surveyamong all adults (18 to 45) living in four rural Germantowns with a high density of ifap (Radon et al., 2007).Questionnaire data were available for 6,937 (68%) eligibleadults. Exposure was estimated by collecting data onodor annoyance and by geocoding data on the number ofifap facilities within 1,530 feet of each home. To controlfor occupational health effects, the researchers limitedtheir analyses to adults without private or professionalcontact with farming environments. The prevalenceof self-reported asthma symptoms and nasal allergiesincreased with self-reported odor annoyance, and thenumber of ifap facilities was a predictor of self-reportedwheeze and decreased fev1 (forced expiratory volumein the first second; see definition). Although odor variedfrom day to day, the study reported reasonable test-retestreliability of the question on odor annoyance in thehome environment. Sources of bias in this study includea somewhat dated (2000) registry of ifap facilities andpossible exposure misclassification.These recent, well-controlled studies are consistent infinding associations between proximity to ifap facilitiesand both asthma symptoms and doctor-diagnosedasthma, although they all use proxies for environmentalexposure to ifap emissions. Taken together, however,they provide reason to increase awareness of asthma risksin communities near ifap facilities, to better informrural doctors of standards for asthma diagnosis and of thereported association with ifap facilities, and to pursuelocal and state environmental measures to minimize risksto children and adults living near ifap facilities.Neurobehavioral OutcomesVolatile organic compounds are important componentsof the thousands of gases, vapors, and aerosols present inifap facilities. More than 24 odorous chemicals (oftenreferred to as odorants) have been identified in ifapemissions (Cole et al., 2000). Valeric acids, mercaptans,and amines are particularly odorous, even in minusculeconcentrations; ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are alsopungently aromatic. Many of these compounds areknown to be toxic to the nervous system in sufficientconcentration. It is thus not surprising that the fewstudies that have examined neurobehavioral issues amongresidents living near ifap facilities have documentedincreased rates of neurobehavioral symptoms such asdepression.Schiffman and colleagues studied North Carolinaresidents who lived in the vicinity of intensive swineoperations and then compared findings from this groupto matched control subjects who did not live near ifapfacilities (Schiffman et al., 1995). They found morenegative mood states (e.g., tension, depression, anger,reduced vigor, fatigue, and confusion) among those livingclose to ifap facilities. In a study of chronic (non-ifap orifap) occupational exposures to hydrogen sulfide, Kilburnfound that such exposures might lead to neuropsychiatricabnormalities, including impaired balance, hearing,FEV1 (forced expiratoryvolume in the first second):The volume of air that canbe forced out in one secondafter taking a deep breath,an important measure ofpulmonary function.17

memory, mood, intellectual function, and visual fieldperformance (Kilburn, 1997).Reports have documented that there is great variabilityamong odors from ifap facilities, that odorous gases maybe transformed through interactions with other gases andparticulates between the source and the receptor (Petersand Blackwood, 1977), and that there is variability inodor persistence (the “persistence factor”), defined asthe relative time that odorous gases remain perceptible(Summer, 1971). There remains a need to combinequantitative measures of odors with environmentalmeasures of a suite of odorants in well-designed,controlled studies of neurobehavioral symptoms and signsin community-based studies.ConclusionsThe Commissioners note that the same techniques thathave increased the productivity of animal agriculturehave also contributed to public health concerns associatedwith ifap. These concerns—antimicrobial resistance,zoonotic disease transfer to humans, and occupationaland community health impacts that stem from the dustsand gases produced by ifap facilities—are not unique toindustrial farm animal production or even agriculture.The industrial economy causes significant ecologicaldisruption, and that disruption is a major cause of disease.Microbes have always existed, will continue to exist, andwill learn to adapt faster. It is the size and concentrationof ifap facilities and their juxtaposition with humanpopulations that make ifap a particular concern.The Commission recommends that the federalgovernment and animal agriculture industry address thecauses of these public health concerns, particularly in thearea of antimicrobial resistance, in order to reduce risksto the general public. The headlines from the fall of 2006when E. Coli contaminated spinach made its way to theconsumer market are fresh in the public’s mind (cdc,2006). The Commission’s recommendations in this areaare intended to bring about greater public protectionwithout imposing an undue burden on the animalagriculture industry.19

Methicillin (Antibiotic)-Resistant Staphylococcusaureus (MRSA)Staphylococcus aureus is a commonbacterium that causes superficialinfections and occasionally invasiveinfections that can be fatal. Strainsof S. aureus that are resistantto the antibiotic methicillin andrelated antibiotics commonlyused to treat it are referred to asmethicillin-resistant Staphylococcusaureus (MRSA). MRSA and otherstaphylococci may be found onhuman skin, in the nose (where it canreside without causing symptoms),and on objects in the environment,and can be passed from person toperson through close contact. MRSAis usually subcategorized as eitherhospital-acquired or communityacquired,not only because of wherethe infection was acquired, but alsobecause different strains of thebacteria appear to be responsible forthe different types of infections.MRSA has become the mostfrequent cause of skin and soft tissueinfections in patients seeking carein US emergency rooms (Moran etal., 2006). It can also cause severeand sometimes fatal invasive disease(Zetola et al., 2005). A recent studyfrom the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC), reported inthe Journal of the American MedicalAssociation (JAMA), showed a rise ininvasive MRSA infections both withinand outside of health care settingsin the United States in 2005. Inparticular, the authors noted a rise incommunity-acquired invasive MRSA,although it is still less prevalent thanthe hospital-acquired strain (Klevenset al., 2007). They cite MRSA asa major emerging public healthproblem.Pigs and some other animals canalso carry staphylococci (includingMRSA) on their bodies (known as“colonization”). MRSA colonizationin pigs was first studied in theNetherlands, where it was foundthat pig farmers were 760 timesmore likely to be colonized withMRSA than people in the generalpopulation (Voss et al., 2005). Inaddition, the study documentedtransmission of MRSA betweenpigs, pig farmers, and their families(Huijsdens et al., 2006; Voss et al.,2005). A separate study in the journalVeterinary Microbiology lookedat the prevalence of MRSA in pigsand pig farmers in Ontario, Canada(Khanna et al., 2007). This studyfound that MRSA is common in pigson farms in Ontario: it was presentin 24.9% of all pigs sampled and in20% of the farmers (the prevalencein the study was 45%). In addition,there was a significant correlationbetween the presence of MRSA inpigs and humans on farms (Khanna etal., 2007). The strains found in bothpigs and farmers in Ontario weremainly of a type that has been foundin pigs in Europe, as well as a straincommonly found in US health carefacilities.S. aureus has also been isolated,at varying levels, from <strong>meat</strong> in Egypt(Bakr et al., 2004), Switzerland(Schraft et al., 1992), and Japan (Kitaiet al., 2005). Analysis of the strainsof bacteria isolated from these <strong>meat</strong>products suggested that they wereof human origin, probably due tocontamination during processing. Arecent study from the Netherlands,however, found low levels of MRSAstrains in <strong>meat</strong> that were probablyof animal (farm) origin (van Looet al., 2007). Proper cooking of the<strong>meat</strong> kills the bacteria, but there isa risk of transmission to workers inprocessing plants and to consumersbefore the <strong>meat</strong> is cooked.The growing importance ofMRSA as a public health problem inthe United States and elsewhere,as well as the growing body ofevidence suggesting transmissionbetween farm animals and humansand among humans, makes itparticularly relevant to the discussionof antimicrobial use in food animals(Witte et al., 2007).21

Industrial farm animal production (ifap) stands in sharp contrast to previousanimal farming methods because of its emphasis on production efficiency andcost minimization. For most of the past 10,000 years, agricultural practice andanimal husbandry were more or less sustainable, as measured by the balancebetween agricultural inputs and outputs and ecosystem health, given thehuman population and rate of consumption. ifap systems, on the other hand,have shifted to a focus on growing animals as units of protein production.Rather than balancing the natural productivity of the land to produce cropsto feed animals, ifap imports feed and medicines to ensure that the animalsmake it to market weight in the shortest time possible. Animals and theirwaste are concentrated and may well exceed the capacity of the land toproduce feed or absorb the waste. Not surprisingly, the rapid ascendance ofifap has produced unintended and often unanticipated environmental andpublic health concerns.Storage and disposal of manure and animal waste areamong the most significant challenges for ifap operators.By any estimate, the amount of farm animal wasteproduced annually in the United States is enormous;the United States Department of Agriculture (usda)estimates around 500 million tons of manure areproduced annually by operations that confine livestockand poultry—three times the epa estimate of 150 milliontons of human sanitary waste produced annually in theUS (epa, 2007b). And in comparison to the lesser amountof human waste, the management and disposal of animalwastes are poorly regulated.Until the late 1950s, manures typically were eitherdeposited directly by animals on pastures or processed insolid form and collected along with bedding (usually hayor straw) from animal housing facilities for applicationto the land as a crop nutrient. There were no regulatedrates of application, seasonal restrictions, or requirementsfor the reporting, analysis, or monitoring of appliedmanures. This lack of protection may have been withoutconsequence before ifap because animal farmers managedfewer animals, widely dispersed among agriculturallands, and relied on natural ecosystems for attenuatingpathogens and absorbing or diluting nutrients. But as thenumber of animals on individual farms increased, theneed for more efficient and regulated methods of manuremanagement grew in importance.As in large human settlements, improper managementof the highly concentrated feces produced by ifapfacilities can and does overwhelm natural cleansingprocesses. Because of the large concentrations of animalsand their manure, what was once a valuable byproductis now a waste that requires proper disposal. As a result,animal feeding operations in the United States, whetherifap or not, now use a number of manure managementstrategies depending on the type of operation and stateand federal regulations.Nutrient and Chemical Contaminantsin the WaterGround application of untreated manure is a commondisposal method and a relatively inexpensive alternativeto chemical fertilizers because nitrogen and phosphorus,essential nutrients for plant growth, are present in highconcentrations in animal waste. Ground application ofifap waste can exceed the ecological capacity of the landto absorb all the nutrients (Arbuckle and Downing, 2001).Application of untreated animal waste on cropland cancontribute to excessive nutrient loading, contaminatesurface waters, and stimulate bacteria and algalgrowth and subsequent reductions in dissolved oxygenconcentrations in surface waters (Rabalais et al., 1996).Nutrient load in water supplies is commonly assessedby biochemical oxygen demand (bod), a measureof organic and inorganic substances subject to aerobicmicrobial metabolism. Very high bod levels indicatesignificant waterborne contamination and difficultiesfor aquatic life. Highly concentrated manure, suchas swine waste slurries, exhibit a bod of 20,000to 30,000 mg per liter (Webb and Archer, 1994), which23

is about 75 times more concentrated than raw humansewage and more than 500 times more concentrated thanthe treated effluent from the average municipal wastewatertreatment facility. Algal blooms, a common response tothe high nutrient loads in agricultural runoff, rapidlydeplete oxygen as the algae die and decompose aerobically.Agricultural runoff laden with chemicals (syntheticfertilizers and pesticides) and nutrients is suspected asa major culprit responsible for many “dead zones” inboth inland and marine waters, affecting an estimated173,000 miles of US waterways (Cook, 1998). Animalfarming is also estimated to account for 55% of soil andsediment erosion, and more than 30% of the nitrogenand phosphorus loading in the nation’s drinking waterresources (Steinfeld et al., 2006).ifap facilities in high-risk areas such as floodplainsare particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events thatincrease the risk, and quantity, of runoff. Flood eventsoverwhelm the storage capacity of ifap liquid manurelagoons and cause catastrophic contamination that resultsin very large fish kills.Beyond nitrogen and phosphorus, waterbornechemical contaminants associated with ifap facilitiesinclude pesticides, heavy metals, and antibiotics andhormones. Pesticides control insect infestations and fungalgrowth. Heavy metals, especially zinc and copper, areadded as micronutrients to the animal diet. Antibioticsare used not only to prevent and treat bacterial infectionsfor animals held in close quarters, but also as growthpromoters. Pharmaceuticals, such as tylosin, a macrolideantibiotic widely used for therapeutics (disease treatment)and growth promotion in swine, beef cattle, and poultry,decays rapidly in the environment but persists in surfacewaters of agricultural watersheds (Song et al., 2007).Nitrate is another important drinking watercontaminant, regulated under epa’s Safe DrinkingWater Act. Its effects on humans include diseases such ashyperthyroidism (Seffner, 1995; Tajtakova et al., 2006)and insulin-dependent diabetes (Kostraba et al., 1992),as well as increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomesand neurodevelopmental defects (Arbuckle et al., 1988;Burkholder et al., 2007). The US epa sets allowable limitsfor nitrate of 10 mg / l in public drinking water suppliesand requires tertiary treatment or amendment withgroundwater before distribution (epa, 2006).The presence of agricultural chemicals in surfacewaters contributes to the growth of cyanobacteria andother microorganisms that may be especially harmful topeople with depressed or immature immune systems(Rao et al., 1995; Shi et al., 2004).It is also recognized that ammonia emissions fromlivestock contribute significantly to the eutrophicationand acidification of soils and waters. Eutrophicationis an excessive richness of nutrients in a body of water,mostly nitrates and phosphates from erosion and runoff ofsurrounding lands, that causes a dense growth of plant lifeand the death of animal life due to lack of oxygen. Somelevel of eutrophication occurs naturally, but this processcan be accelerated by human activities. Acidification canput stress on species diversity in the natural environment.Reduction of ammonia emissions from cafos requirescovering of manure storage tanks and reservoirs and thedirect injection of controlled quantities of manure slurryinto soil only during the growing season. Land applicationof manure during winter months or rainy weather leads tosignificant runoff into surface waters.Legislating Animal WasteManagement: North CarolinaAs the numbers of large industriallivestock and poultry farms increaseacross the country, so do concernsabout animal waste disposal andits effects on public health andthe environment. To address theseconcerns, several state and locallawmakers have passed or proposedlaws aimed directly at concentratedanimal feeding operations (CAFOs)in hopes of protecting local watersand limiting the risks of pollution.Lawmakers in North Carolina,the nation’s second-largest hogproducer—producing almost 10million swine a year—struggledfor years to pass legislation thatwould help reduce the water and airpollution caused by IFAP operations.Most of the state’s hog farmers areconcentrated in a few counties in thecoastal plain region; according to theRaleigh News & Observer, there aremore than 2,300 farms registeredin the state, most of them in ruraleastern North Carolina.In the late 1990s, state lawmakerswere the first in the nation toinstitute a temporary statewidemoratorium on the construction ofnew hog waste lagoons and sprayfields as primary methods of wastemanagement, and in September2007, they made the ban permanent(“Senate enacts ban on newhog-waste lagoons,” The News &Observer, April 19, 2007). The lawnot only bans the construction ofnew lagoons but requires that newwaste management systems meetstrict environmental performancestandards. It does not changerequirements for existing lagoons,but provides monetary assistancefor farmers to voluntarily convertto alternative waste managementsystems. However, Deborah Johnson,chief executive officer of the NorthCarolina Pork Council, told theNational Hog Farmer, “Unless somenew technological breakthroughhappens, we will have lagoons andspray fields for the foreseeablefuture” (“North Carolina Keeps SwineLagoons,” National Hog Farmer: July26, 2007).The new law also established apilot program that helps farmersconvert methane emissions fromcovered lagoons to electricity.Some environmental and communityadvocates are concerned, however,that the methane program willdiscourage farmers who use lagoonsfrom investing in alternative wastedisposal systems.25

Water StressLike other aspects of ifap (such as manure disposal),crop production for animal feed places enormous demandon water resources: 87% of the use of freshwater in theUS is used in agriculture, primarily irrigation (Pimentelet al., 1997). For example, it takes nearly 420 gallons ofwater to produce one pound of grain-fed broiler chicken(Pimentel et al., 1997). ifap operations in arid or semiaridregions are thus of particular concern because of theirhigh water demand on the limited supply of water,much of it from aquifers that may have limited rechargecapacity. The 174,000-square-mile Ogallala aquifer, forexample, is a fossil aquifer that dates back to the last iceage and underlies parts of Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado,Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Irrigation hasreduced the Ogallala by more than half, and currentdepletion rates exceed 3.3 feet per year of water table level(McMichael, 1993; Soule and Piper, 1992). Because theaquifer’s very slow recharge rate is vastly outstripped byirrigation and other human needs, the aquifer is at riskof being fully depleted, threatening not only agriculturebut drinking water supplies for a huge area of the UnitedStates.Greenhouse Gases and OtherAir PollutantsGlobally, greenhouse gas emissions from all livestockoperations account for 18% of anthropogenic greenhousegas emissions, exceeding those from the transportationsector (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Agriculture accountsfor 7.4% of the total US release of greenhouse gases(epa, 2007a). Animals produce greenhouse gases suchas methane and carbon dioxide during the digestionprocess. Other greenhouse gases, primarily nitrous oxide,arise mainly from the microbial degradation of manure.Additional emissions result from degradation processesin uncovered waste lagoons and anaerobic digesters. Theglobal warming potential of these emissions, comparedto a value of one for carbon dioxide, is 62 for methaneand 275 for nitrous oxide on a 20-year time horizon.The US epa Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report data foragricultural inputs are summarized below.Emission control solutions are now being examinedby the epa, along with possible opportunities for carboncredits and credit trading (Jensen, 2006).Air quality degradation is also a problem in andaround ifap facilities because of the localized release ofsignificant quantities of toxic gases, odorous substances,and particulates and bioaerosols that contain a varietyof microorganisms and human pathogens (furtherdiscussed in the public health section of this report).These compounds arise from feed, animals, manure, andmicroorganisms. Highly noxious odors are associatedwith vapor phase chemicals and compounds adherent toparticles. These agents emanate from livestock facilities,waste storage reservoirs, and manure application sites,and all can be transported aerially from ifap facilities toneighbors or neighboring communities.Some of the most objectionable compounds are theorganic acids, which include acetic acid, butyric acids,valeric acids, caproic acids, and propanoic acid; sulfurcontainingcompounds such as hydrogen sulfide anddimethyl sulfide; and nitrogen-containing compoundsincluding ammonia, methyl amines, methyl pyrazines,skatoles, and indoles. Smells associated with thesecompounds are described as similar to those of rotten eggsor rotting vegetables (hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl sulfide),rancid butter (butyric acids), and feces (valeric acid,skatole, indole).BiofiltersBiofilters are a method forreducing air emissions fromIFAP facilities. They are fairlysimple to construct andoperate, successfully mitigateair emissions, and they are costeffective.The filters can be made fromseveral kinds of material, butthey are most often a mixtureof compost and woodchipswrapped in a fabric. Thefabric keeps the filter fromclogging and must be replacedperiodically. Most biofiltersoperate in conjunction with asystem to sprinkle water onthe filter and fans to blow airthrough it.The filters work byconverting the compounds inthe air into water and carbondioxide. Air from inside thepit or barn is forced throughthe filter and then out into theatmosphere.Biofilters can reduce odorand ammonia emissions by over80%.US Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Agricultural Emissions (Source: EPA, 2007a)Greenhouse Gas Source Thousand Tons Thousand Tons CO 2EquivalentMethane (CH 4) Total 8,459.14 17,770Enteric fermentation 5,886.34 12,360Manure management 2,167.14 4,550Other 406.75 860Nitrous Oxide (N 2O) Total 1,333.80 41,350Agriculture soil management 1,298.52 40,250Manure management 34.17 1,050Other 2.20 6027

Energyifap is more energy intensive than the traditional practiceof raising food animals (e.g., cows grazing on pastures),requiring disproportionately large inputs of fossil fuel,industrial fertilizers, and other synthetic chemicals. Forexample, the ratio of fossil fuel energy inputs per unit offood energy produced—not including food processingand distribution—averages 3:1 for all US agriculturalproducts combined, but for industrially produced <strong>meat</strong>products the ratio can be as high as 35:1 (beef producedin feedlots generally has a particularly unfavorable energybalance) (Horrigan et al., 2002).Commissioners’ ConclusionsThe number of farms that raise livestock has fallendramatically while the total number of farm animalsraised in the US each year has remained relatively constant(Gollehon et al., 2001). ifap has made this possiblewith significant gains in production efficiency by mostmeasures: on a per animal basis, today’s farm animalrequires less feed, produces less manure, and reachesmarket weight much faster than farm animals producedon the small family farm of 50 years ago. The result is thatthe price consumers pay for <strong>meat</strong>, poultry, dairy, and eggproducts at the grocery store or in restaurants is cheaper inreal terms (adjusted for inflation) than it was even severalyears ago.The downside of ifap practices is that they haveproduced an expanding array of deleterious environmentaleffects on local and regional water, air, and soil resources.Those effects impose costs on the society at large that arenot “internalized” in the price paid at the retail counterfor <strong>meat</strong>, poultry, dairy, or egg products.The large concentration of animals on the typicalindustrial farm presents a major waste managementproblem. The volumes of manure are so large thattraditional land disposal methods can be impractical andenvironmentally threatening. Excess nutrients in manurecontaminate surface and groundwater resources. Today,over a million people are estimated to take their drinkingwater from groundwater that shows moderate or severecontamination with nitrogen-containing pollutants(Nolan and Hitt, 2006), mostly due to the heavy use ofagricultural fertilizers and high rates of application ofanimal waste.The location of ifap facilities near each other andthe waste they discharge untreated into the environmentexacerbate their environmental impact. A single hog ifapfacility, for example, produces manure in an amountequivalent to the sewage flow of an entire Americantown. Pound for pound, pigs produce four times thewaste of a human. Consequently, a single ifap housing5,000 pigs produces the same volume of raw sewage asa town of 20,000, but the ifap facility does not havea sewage treatment plant (Walker et al., 2005). TheCommission believes that to protect against furtherenvironmental degradation, there is a need for bettermanagement practices, more protective zoning, andimproved monitoring and enforcement of ifap facilities.In addition, the Commission recommends a full life cycleanalysis to fully assess the ecological impacts of ifapfacilities.Impacts of Animal Agriculturein Yakima Valley, WashingtonThe state of Washington has someof the toughest environmentalprotection laws in the country, butyou wouldn’t know it if you live inYakima Valley, says longtime residentand family farmer, Helen Reddout.Reddout is credited by many as oneof the first environmentalists to bringnational attention to the issue ofindustrialized animal agriculture andits effects on the environment andpublic health.Reddout has called Yakima Valleyhome for more than 50 years. Sheraised her family, tended her cherrytrees, and taught at the local schoolfor most of that time. It wasn’t untila large dairy operation opened nearher family farm that Reddout becamean outspoken critic of what she calls“factory farms.”Reddout remembers the firsttime she was directly affected bya concentrated animal feedingoperation. It was 2:00 in the morningwhen she was awakened by what shedescribes as a “hideous smell oozingfrom the window.” Her neighborwas using nearby land as a sprayfield to dispose of manure. The nextmorning, “There in the middle ofthe field was a manure gun sprayinghuge streams of gray-green sewageonto the already oversaturatedfield … the ammonia smell was sostrong it made me gasp.” When shenoticed much of the liquid manurewas running off into a drainageditch, Reddout began to worryabout her well water. Subsequenttests revealed her drinking well wascontaminated with nitrates, althoughwhether her neighbor is directly toblame has not been proved.In Washington, as in many otherparts of the United States, thenumber of dairies is shrinking whiletheir size is increasing. Between 1989and 2002, the number of dairies inwestern Washington dropped frommore than 1,000 to about 500 whilethe average herd grew from 30 cowsin the 1950s to 350 today. As of2002, there were just 160 dairies ineastern Washington, 71 of them inYakima County alone.Dairy industry leaders point outthat most Washington dairies are runin accordance to the law, arguingthat a small number of “bad actors”are unfairly used to demonize theindustry.29

Animal Welfare30

Before the emergence of industrial farm animal production systems, the ethicof animal husbandry held that good care of animals was wholly consistent withthe interests of the farmer. Most animals were raised on diversified farms thatproduced both crops and several species of animals, which generally had accessto the pasture or barnyard whenever weather conditions permitted. For the mostpart, husbandry was considered the responsibility of the producer.More than 100 years later, farms in the 21st century have become highlyspecialized systems and no longer produce more than one crop and severalspecies of livestock. Farms producing both crops and livestock still exist, butthey are no longer the norm. Now, crop growers sell to feed mills that formulateengineered feeds to sell to farmers who raise and feed livestock. The supplychain has thus evolved to a series of distinct production processes connectedthrough economic transactions. Consumers are now at the extreme end of thissupply chain, yet they are increasingly concerned that farm animals are affordeda decent life. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to define what actually constitutesa decent life for animals because doing so includes both ethical (value-based)and scientific (empirical) components.Increasing public awareness of the conditions prevalent in confinementagriculture (e.g., gestation and farrowing crates for swine, battery cages forlayers) has led to consumer demand for changes in animal treatment. A pollconducted by Oklahoma State University and the American Farm BureauFederation found that 75% of the public would like to see government mandatesfor basic animal welfare measures ( http: // asp.okstate.edu./ baileynorwood /aw2 /aw2main.htm). Possibly as a defensive response, the food animal industry hasmade changes that are easily marketed and that are aimed at changing publicperception. Smithfield, for example, announced recently that it would eliminatethe use of gestation crates in its hog-rearing operations, and the United EggProducers have published standards for the treatment of laying hens.31

An Alternative HogProduction SystemAlternatives to the presentconcentrated animal feedingoperation (CAFO) model of raisinghogs vary widely by region. Butalthough they differ in design,alternative systems share onecommon element: they all increaseboth labor and animal husbandryrequired to manage the animals,whereas the traditional CAFO isdesigned to require as little animalhusbandry training as possible.This sidebar focuses on the hoopbarn, the most prevalent alternativesystem for raising hogs in the UnitedStates. It is similar to a traditionalCAFO in that the hogs are keptin a confined space to facilitatemanagement and speed up growthcompared to the pigs in a natural,feral environment, but it differs inimportant ways.A hoop barn, whether it isused for gestation, farrowing,or finishing, is a semipermanentstructure that sits on sidewalls 4to 6 feet high and made of woodor concrete. On top of the wall, aUV-resistant tarp stretched overa hoop-shaped metal frame formsthe roof of the structure. The flooris concrete or a combination ofdirt and concrete. The minimalistnature of the structure makes itappealing to producers for severalreasons: it costs much less than atraditional wood truss building; itcan be used for other purposes, suchas equipment storage; and it can beremoved relatively easily if need be.A hoop barn can last up to 10 years,versus a traditional confinementbarn, which lasts about 15 years.Ventilation systems in hoop barnsare much simpler than in traditionalconfinement structures. Ratherthan mechanical fans to controltemperature and ventilation, thehoop barn uses natural ventilationby leaving the ends of the barn openduring the summer months. Hoopbarns also have a space between theside wall and the tarp, which acts asa natural ventilator to bring in freshair. In winter, electric heaters (oftensuspended from the metal frame)provide heat. Deep bedding alsohelps insulate the pigs by allowingthem to nest and burrow. Theaerobic process that occurs when thebedding mixes with the hogs’ dungalso creates heat. However, given therelatively lightweight nature of thetarp, hoop barns are not appropriatefor extremely cold climates becauseit is difficult to keep the temperatureinside at or near either a comfortabletemperature for the animals or theideal temperature for their weightgain.Deep bedding is used to handlemanure instead of liquid or scrapehandling systems. Hoop barnsare generally separated into twosections, one for feeding and onefor watering. The dirt floor sectionis bedded with straw, cornstalks,or some other bedding materialoften derived from crop or fieldresidue materials. The bedding helpsinsulate the animals in winter andalso absorbs moisture from urineand binds with feces. The combinedbedding and manure product is theneither composted and stored or caston fields to dry. After drying, it isspread and often disked into thefield, so the possibility of manurerunoff into streams is reduced.Hoop barn systems are muchcheaper to build than a fixedstructure, but there are othercosts, such as bedding and animalmanagement, that are not incurred ina traditional confinement system.The information in this piece isadapted from, Hoop Barns for Grow-Finish Swine, Midwest Plan Service,September 2004, page 20.Impacts of Confinementon Animal WelfareToday’s concentrated animal production systems arededicated to producing <strong>meat</strong> as cheaply as possiblewhile achieving certain standards of taste, texture, andefficiency. Confinement systems are designed to produceanimals of marketable weight in less time and with alower incidence of some diseases. When the animals areconfined indoors, discomfort due to weather is reduced.The downside is that animals are kept in more crowdedconditions, are subject to a number of chronic andproduction-related diseases, and are unable to exhibitnatural behaviors. In addition, the animals are oftenphysically altered or restrained to prevent injury tothemselves or ifap workers.Confinement animals are generally raised indoors and,in some cases (e.g., poultry, laying hens, hogs), the groupsize when raised indoors is larger than outdoors. In othercases (e.g., veal crates or gestation crates for sows), animalsare separated and confined to spaces that provide for onlyminimal movement. The fundamental welfare concern isthe ability of the animal to express natural behaviors—forexample, having natural materials to walk or lie on, havingenough floor space to move around with some freedom,and rooting (for hogs). Crates, battery cages, and othersuch systems fail to allow for even these minimal naturalbehaviors.Other animal management practices that have beenquestioned include feeding and nutrition. For example,beef cattle finished in feedlots are typically fed grainsrather than forage (grass, hay, and other roughage), eventhough their digestive systems are designed to metabolizeforage diets. The result is that beef cattle put on weightfaster, but they also often experience internal abscesses.Some laying hens still have their feed restricted at regularintervals in order to induce molting to encourage egglaying (although this practice is mostly phased out,according to United Egg Producers (uep) standards).Most animals are physically altered without pain reliefwhen raised in concentrated, confined production systems(as well as in some more open systems), even though itis widely accepted that such alteration causes pain. Forexample, hogs have their tails docked to avoid tail bitingby other hogs in close proximity. Laying hens and broilershave their toenails, spurs, and beaks clipped. Dairy cowsmay have their horns removed or their tails docked. Thepurpose of such alteration is to avoid injury to the animal,33

or to make it easier to handle, or to meet market demandson alteration, such as castration of bulls raised for beef,and so these practices are common throughout animalagriculture, not just in cafos and ifap.The Five FreedomsContemporary concerns about the welfare of intensivelyfarmed animals are generally considered to have originatedwith the 1964 publication of Animal Machines by RuthHarrison of the United Kingdom. The book is widelyregarded as having the same formative effect on theanimal welfare movement as Rachel Carson’s 1962book, Silent Spring, had on the modern environmentalmovement. Harrison described what she called a “newtype of farming …[with] animals living out their lives indarkness and immobility without the sight of the sun, of ageneration of men who see in the animal they rear only itsconversion to human food.”A year after Harrison’s book was published, theBrambell Committee Report (1965) described criteriafor the scientific investigation of farm animal welfare.The committee, made up of leading veterinarians,animal scientists, and biologists in the United Kingdom(uk), defined welfare as including both physical andmental well-being (Command Paper 2836). The reportemphasized that the evaluation of animal welfare mustinclude “scientific evidence available concerning thefeelings of the animals that can be derived from theirstructure and functions and also from their behavior.”The emphasis on behavior and feelings was radical forits time (even in 2007, debate continues on this subjectamong animal scientists), but in 1997 the Farm AnimalWelfare Council (fawc), an independent advisory bodyestablished by the British government in 1979, adopted theprinciples of the Brambell report as the “Five Freedoms,”which became the basis for guidelines and codes ofpractice for various organizations around the world.These five freedoms are described as follows:The welfare of an animal includes its physical andmental state and we consider that good animal welfareimplies both fitness and a sense of well-being. Anyanimal kept by man must, at least, be protected fromunnecessary suffering.An animal’s welfare, whether on farm, in transit, atmarket or at a place of slaughter, should be consideredin terms of the ‘five freedoms.’ These freedoms defineideal states rather than standards for acceptablewelfare. They form a logical and comprehensiveframework for analysis of welfare within any systemtogether with the steps and compromises necessaryto safeguard and improve welfare within the properconstraints of an effective livestock industry.1 Freedom from Hunger and Thirst—by ready accessto fresh water and a diet to maintain full healthand vigor.2 Freedom from Discomfort—by providing anappropriate environment including shelter and acomfortable resting area.3 Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease—byprevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.4 Freedom to Express Normal Behavior—by providingsufficient space, proper facilities, and company ofthe animals’ own kind.5 Freedom from Fear and Distress—by ensuringconditions and treatment that avoid mentalsuffering.Source: (fawc, 2007) at http: / / www.fawc.org.uk / freedoms.htmAnimal husbandry methods designed to accommodatethese five freedoms, particularly when it comes to housingcharacteristics, result in minimal cost to the consumer.More recently, scientists and advocates in the EuropeanUnion have refined the five freedoms and further clarifiedthe requirements for basic animal well-being. These arelisted in the table on page 37.Theses criteria are intended to be taken in theirentirety. Consequently, animals raised in conditions thatmeet the “Good Feeding” criteria but not the “AppropriateBehavior” criteria would not be considered to have goodwelfare. In the United States, the “Appropriate Behavior”criteria seem to be the hardest to satisfy and generallyare not met for food animals. Fully implementing thesecriteria will require the education of both consumersand producers.Voluntary Standards and CertificationConsumer concern for humane treatment of foodproducinganimals is growing and has prompted changein the industry. Retailers and restaurateurs are particularlysensitive to consumer concerns and have begun insistingon minimal animal welfare standards that they canreport to their customers. Consolidation in the groceryand restaurant industries—10 grocery and 15 restaurantcompanies control the majority of sales in animalproducts—has brought those sectors the market power todemand change from their suppliers.McDonald’s and Wal-Mart are among those callingfor at least minimal standards for animal well-being fromtheir suppliers. McDonald’s, for example, began auditingpacking plants several years ago to ensure that cattle werehandled and killed humanely according to the voluntarystandards developed by the American Meat Institute 4 (seetable on page 37). Later, McDonald’s appointed an animalwelfare committee of outside experts and established onfarmstandards for their suppliers, beginning with layinghens. Other retailers, such as Whole Foods, adopted morestringent standards to accommodate the interests of theircustomer base. Their competitors quickly followed suit,and in 2000 the trade associations of supermarkets (theFood Marketing Institute, fmi) and chain restaurants(National Council of Chain Restaurants, nccr)consolidated their recently established animal welfareexpert committees to create a coordinated and uniform35

program. Following their lead, other retailers and foodanimal producers have adopted standards of their own(see table on page 39).However, when an affected industry defines, monitors,and enforces voluntary standards, it is vulnerable tocharges of “the fox guarding the hen house.” So in thespirit of Ronald Reagan’s “trust but verify” admonition,third-party certification and labeling (in which the labelis granted by an independent organization) have becomeincreasingly common. Such labels allow consumersboth in the United States and abroad to know that theproducts they buy are consistent with their concernsfor environmental sustainability, social equity, and / orhumane animal treatment. Some examples of third-partycertification and labeling include Fair Trade certificationof commodities, a designation that indicates sustainablygrown coffee, for example, and the payment of a just wageto growers; and the Forest Stewardship Council’s CertifiedSustainable Forest Products have made significant inroadsinto the marketplace for lumber. Consumer preferencefor such labeling has been strong enough that manycommodity producers and retailers seek out certificationto protect their market share and increase marketpenetration.Several third-party certification programs focusprimarily on animal welfare. The largest of theseis Certified Humane Raised and Handled. ThisInternational Standards Organization (iso) Guide 65certified labeling program, modeled on the FreedomFoods program established by the Royal Society forPrevention of Cruelty to Animals in the United Kingdom,has the support of 27 humane organizations around theworld. Since its inception in 2003, it has grown to covermore than 14 million animals produced by 60 <strong>meat</strong>,poultry, dairy, or egg suppliers as well as 20 restaurantsand supermarket chains that feature certified products.All of these standards seek to address consumerconcerns for the humane treatment of animals. Advocacyby animal protection groups has been effective in raisingawareness in this area, and sensitivity to issues that affectanimal well-being continues to grow.European Union Criteria for Animal Well-Being (Source: European Union Animal WelfareQuality Program: http: / / www.welfarequality.net /everyone / 36059)Welfare Criteria Welfare Principles MeaningGood feeding Absence of prolonged hunger Animals should not suffer fromprolonged hungerAbsence of prolonged thirst Animals should not suffer fromprolonged thirstGood housing Comfort around resting Animals should be comfortable,especially within their lying areasThermal comfortAnimals should be in goodthermal environmentEase of movementAnimals should be able to movearound freelyGood health Absence of injuries Animals should not be physicallyinjuredAbsence of diseaseAnimals should be free of diseaseAbsence of pain induced bymanagement proceduresAnimals should not suffer frompain induced by inappropriatemanagementAppropriate behavior Expression of social behaviors Animals should be allowed toexpress natural, non-harmful,social behaviors.Expression of other behaviors Animals should have thepossibility of expressing otherintuitively desirable naturalbehaviors, such as explorationand playGood human-animal relationship Good human-animal relationshipsare beneficial to the welfare ofanimalsAbsence of general fearAnimals should not experiencenegative emotions such as fear,distress, frustration, or apathy37

38LegislationReliance on voluntary standards alone is not likely to fullymeet the public’s concern for the welfare of industrialfarm animals. Voluntary standards applied in otherindustries (forestry, for example) have been limited by theloopholes allowed in the standards. Similarly, because thefood animal industry has an economic stake in ensuringthat such voluntary standards result in the least cost, andconsequently, additional measures are likely to be neededto ensure a decent minimally life for animals raised forfood. Surveys such as those conducted by the HumaneSociety and the Farm Bureau (reported earlier in thischapter) clearly reveal a growing social ethic amongconsumers that compels the animal agriculture industryto address public concerns about animal welfare.At the present time, federal regulation of the treatmentof farm animals is minimal, consisting of only two majorlaws. The first is the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, whichwas passed in 1873 and requires that, after 28 hours ofinterstate travel by rail, steam, sail, or “vessels of anydescription,” livestock be unloaded and fed, watered,and rested for at least five consecutive hours before theresumption of transport. While generally thought of as alaw to address animal cruelty, its motivation was in largepart to reduce animal losses in transit. Strengthened in1906 after publication of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle,the law was amended again in 1994 to apply to animalstransported by “rail carrier, express carrier, or commoncarrier (except by air or water).” However, usda did notagree to regulate truck transport (the major means oftransport for livestock) until 2006, after animal protectiongroups protested (hsus, 2006 b) and the courts ruledthat usda could no longer apply “regulatory discretion”to truck transport. The second federal law is the HumaneMethods of Slaughter Act (hsa), which was passed in 1958and stipulated that livestock be rendered insensible to painbefore slaughter. The hsa did not cite poultry, however,so poultry processing plants are excluded from usdaenforcement.All other attempts to pass federal laws settingstandards for farm animal housing, transport, or slaughterhave been unsuccessful, with the exception of the federalstandards for the transport of slaughter horses, authorizedunder the 1996 Farm Bill. Indeed, few bills dealing withon-farm animal welfare regulation have been introducedin Congress and most have failed. This absence ofregulation stands in sharp contrast to the federal oversightof certain mammals (including farm animals) usedin biomedical research, teaching, and testing, the useand care of which are extensively regulated under theprovisions of the 1966 Animal Welfare Act. 5Perhaps because of the lack of federal regulation, therehas been increasing emphasis on the introduction of stateand local regulation. All states have some form of animalcruelty legislation and enforcement is becoming stricter,with more significant fines for violations. However, 25states specifically exempt farm animals from animalcruelty laws, and in 30 states certain “normal” farmpractices are exempted. Concerned citizens and advocatesare therefore using mechanisms other than cruelty chargesin an attempt to regulate or outlaw certain practices.For example, several states now have laws banning sowgestation crates: a voter referendum on a constitutionalamendment banned them in Florida in 2002, a similarinitiative (which also banned the use of veal crates) passedin Arizona in 2006, and the Oregon legislature alsorecently passed a state law banning crates. The productionof foie gras was outlawed in California by legislative votein 2004, and the city of Chicago in 2006 banned the saleof foie gras in restaurants. Several states have referendumson their ballots in 2008 that propose banning the use ofbattery cages to house laying hens.In 1996, New Jersey became the first (and only)state to require its Department of Agriculture to writecomprehensive standards for the “humane raising,keeping, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domesticlivestock.” But the department’s proposed regulationswere not issued until 2004, and animal protection groupsimmediately criticized them as endorsing the status quo,although the preface to the standards makes it clear thatthe intent was to provide minimal requirements for theprosecution of animal cruelty cases. Animal protectiongroups have filed suit against the state of New Jersey,and it is unclear whether or not (or when) the proposedregulations will be finalized and enforced.Commissioners’ ConclusionsThe Pew Commission on Industrial Farm AnimalProduction considers animal well-being an essentialcomponent of a safe and sustainable production systemfor farm animals. Food animals that are treated welland provided with at least minimum accommodation oftheir natural behaviors and physical needs are healthierand safer for human consumption. After reviewing theliterature, visiting production facilities, and listening toproducers themselves, the Commission believes that themost intensive confinement systems, such as restrictiveveal crates, hog gestation pens, restrictive farrowing crates,and battery cages for poultry, all prevent the animal froma normal range of movement and constitute inhumanetreatment.Growing public awareness and concern for thetreatment of food animals has brought increased demandsfor standards to ensure at least minimal protection ofanimal welfare. These demands have been expressedthrough pressure on retail and restaurant operatorsfor standards that can be audited and certified. TheCommissioners believe that the demand for suchstandards will increase in the next several years and thatit will be incumbent upon <strong>meat</strong>, poultry, egg, and dairyproducers to meet that demand and demonstrate that foodanimals are treated humanely throughout their lifetimes,up to and including the method of slaughter. Further,producers who are able to incorporate animal husbandrypractices that assure better treatment for animals arelikely to benefit in increased profit and market share asconsumers express their preference at the grocery store.

Major US Animal Welfare Standards (Source: Mench et al., 2008)Source Scope Program / Document PurposeAmerican Meat InstituteAmerican SheepIndustryAnimal Welfare InstituteCertified HumaneRaised and HandledFree Farmed (AHA)Milk and Dairy BeefQuality AssuranceProgramNational Cattlemen’sBeef AssociationNational ChickenCouncilNational OrganicStandardsLivestockslaughter plants*Recommended AnimalHandling GuidelinesAudit GuideGuidelinesVoluntary auditSheep Sheep Care Guide GuidelinesPigs, beef cattle andcalves, rabbits, ducks,sheepEgg-laying hens, broilers,turkeys, beef, dairy,sheep, swineEgg-laying hens, broilers,turkeys, beef, dairy,sheep, swineDairyBeef CattleBroiler chickensAll livestock and poultryAnimal FriendlyStandards (for eachspecies)(detailed standardsfor each species)(detailed standardsfor each species)*Caring for DairyAnimals TechnicalReference GuideOn-The-Dairy Self-Evaluation Guide*Guidelines for Careand Handling of BeefCattle*Animal WelfareGuidelinesAudit ChecklistNational OrganicStandardsand GuidelinesPork Board Pigs Swine WelfareAssurance Program,which includes the*Swine Care HandbookVoluntary guidelines forsmall family farmersISO-certified third-partylabeling programthird-party labelingprogramGuideline and selfevaluation;voluntarycertificationVoluntary guidelinesVoluntary guidelinesVoluntary auditUSDA labeling program;main focus is organicalthough includessome animal husbandrystandardsSelf-educationprogram for producers;auditing program to bedevelopedUnited Egg Producers Caged layers *Animal HusbandryGuidelines for US EggLaying FlocksGuidelines forcaged hensUEP Certified ProgramThird-party auditingand labeling program*Approved by FMI-NCCR as guidelines appropriate for the development of retail auditing programs.Individual retailers may also have their own standards and /or auditing programs, which may differsignificantly from the programs approved by the FMI-NCCR committee.39

Rural America40

Asked to describe rural life, people are likely to talk of pastoral landscapes, openspaces, a slower pace of life, a place where people are friendlier. In short, “rural”evokes an idyllic image of life, a counterpoint to the intense pace of urban life.But the realities of rural life are somewhat different. A dominant featureof life in much of rural America is persistent poverty. In 2005, more than 15%of the rural population (73 million people) earned family incomes of less than$19,800, which is below the official poverty line. Most of the nearly 400 UScounties that are classified as poor are also rural (usda-ers, 2008).The Rural EconomyRural America has long been this country’s main supplierof raw materials. In the past few decades, however, globaltrade liberalization has made American manufacturingless competitive vis-à-vis developing world manufacturingcenters resulting in less demand for raw materials andfewer rural jobs. US manufacturing employment peakedin 1979 at nearly 20 million jobs and fell to 14 millionby 2004 as increased substitution of capital for labor andlabor productivity gains, as well as consumers’ continuingappetite for goods made more cheaply abroad, tooktheir toll.But persistent rural poverty is the result of manyfactors, not only a lack of employment opportunities.Rural poverty rates have always been higher than urbanrates. And rural poverty is more enduring: federallydesignated “persistent” poverty areas, defined by the usdaEconomic Research Service as areas with consistently highpoverty rates for at least 30 years, are all rural. Analystssuggest the following causes of rural poverty:• Educational attainment: Adults in rural America areless likely to have a college degree than urban residents,and the quality of rural educational systems often fallsshort, especially in low-wealth counties; both factorslimit the ability of rural workers to secure good jobsand of rural counties to attract and create quality jobs.• Lack of opportunity: Rural areas often lack economicdiversity and rely on a limited number of industries(e.g., extractive industries), which can limit jobadvancement and make rural jobs more vulnerableto market forces and corporate restructuring.• Infrastructure: From child care facilities to publictransportation to information technology, ruralinfrastructure is often inadequate and serves as abarrier to the recruitment of companies and jobs.• Discrimination: Whether on the basis of race orethnicity, social class, or gender, discrimination persistsin some rural areas, blocking access to opportunityamong underserved population groups.Given the lack of economic opportunity in ruralAmerica, it is not surprising that local policymakers havelooked to ifap facilities as an opportunity to promoteeconomic development. Many such facilities were sitedin poor counties as a job creation strategy, often lured tothose locations with promises of significant tax abatementand other benefits. But higher rates of poverty areequally prevalent in areas of high ifap concentration, anassociation confirmed by Durrenberger and Thu’s findingof higher rates of food stamp use in Iowa counties withindustrialized hog production (Durrenberger and Thu,1996).The economic disparity between industrial farmcommunities and those that retain locally owned farmsmay be due, at least in part, to the degree to which moneystays in the community. Locally owned and controlledfarms tend to buy their supplies and services locally, thussupporting a variety of local businesses. This phenomenonis known as the economic “multiplier” effect, estimatedat approximately seven dollars per dollar earned by thelocally owned farm. In contrast, ifap facilities undercontract to integrators have a much lower multiplier effectbecause their purchases of feed, supplies, and services tendto leave the community, going to suppliers and serviceproviders mandated by the integrators. Researchers inMichigan documented the magnitude of this difference bytracking local purchases of supplies for swine production.Abeles-Allison and Connor found that local expendituresper hog were $67 for the small, locally owned farms and$46 for the larger, industrialized farms (the $21 differenceis largely due to the larger farms’ purchases of bulkfeed from outside the community) (Abeles-Allison andConnor, 1990).The ifap trend toward consolidation among <strong>meat</strong>packing companies and <strong>meat</strong> packer control of livestockproduction through contracts with farmers to growthe animals, rather than buying the animals at theslaughterhouse, has put the farmer at a disadvantage. Theincentive for both <strong>meat</strong> packers and farmers is to gaincontrol of markets and thus reduce the fluctuation anduncertainty of prices. But the high degree of consolidationin the <strong>meat</strong> packing industry has created a nearmonopoly in that sector. According to the Organizationfor Competitive Markets, a national nonprofit publicpolicy research organization headquartered in Lincoln,Nebraska, the falling numbers of farmers across the41

country are due, in large part, to the growth of foodprocessingmonopolies.The combination of <strong>meat</strong> packers’ ownership oflivestock and rigid contract relationships with thefarmers who raise the livestock eliminates open marketcompetition and drives down prices paid to growers.Often, a producer without a contract with a packer cannotsell livestock at all; and the packers’ high degree of marketcontrol allows them to exert market pressure that drivesdown prices. The farmers, who now need contracts tosell the animals they produce, are in the position of beingprice takers. According to a usda report, only ninepercent of hogs were sold on the open market from 2002to 2005, while 62% of cattle were sold on the open marketduring the same period. The price decline attributable tothat degree of control by packers was estimated (for cattle)to be approximately $5.75 per hundredweight, or $69 lessper head (on a 1,200-pound animal) than the free marketprice (usda-ers, 2001). For hogs, the picture is decidedlymore dismal.Industrial Agricultureand Quality of LifeAs long ago as the 1930s, government and academicresearchers began investigating the extent to which largeindustrialized farms affect their communities. One of thefirst studies was conducted by sociologist E.D. Tetreau,who found that large-scale, hired labor–dependent farmswere associated with poor social and economic well-beingin rural Arizona communities (Tetreau, 1940).In the early 1940s, the United States Department ofAgriculture (usda) sponsored a research project on theeffects of industrialized farming using a matched pair ofCalifornia communities: Arvin, where large, absenteeowned,nonfamily farms were more numerous, andDinuba, where locally owned, family-operated farmswere more numerous. The research was led by WalterGoldschmidt, a usda anthropologist who systematicallydocumented the relationship between large-scale farmingand its impact on a variety of community quality of lifeindicators such as size of the middle class, family incomelevels and poverty rates, quality of public schools, andstrength of civil society organizations (such as churchesand civic organizations).Across the board, the indicators measured byGoldschmidt showed that Arvin’s quality of life was lowerthan Dinuba’s. Arvin’s residents also had less local controlover public decisions, what he called a “lack of democraticdecision making,” as local government was susceptible toinfluence by outside agribusiness interests (Goldschmidt,1946; Goldschmidt, 1978). Goldschmidt concludedthat large-scale industrialized farms create a variety ofsocial problems for communities, a finding that manyother studies have confirmed. Decades later, Californiarevisited Arvin and Dinuba in its Small Farm ViabilityProject and concluded that the disparity between the twocommunities observed by Goldschmidt had increased—the economic and social gaps had widened (1977).Similar effects have been reported in other studies,such as a 1988 study of family-farm and industrialagricultural communities in 98 industrial-farm counties inCalifornia, Arizona, Texas, and Florida. The study foundthat farm size (in acres), gross farm sales, and high levels ofmechanization “significantly predict declining communityconditions not merely at the local agricultural communitylevel, but in the entire county” (MacCannell, 1988).A further significant ifap impact on quality of lifeis the smell, which can have dramatic consequencesfor surrounding communities, where lives are rootedin enjoying the outdoors (Thu, 2002). The siting oflarge-scale livestock facilities near homes disrupts rurallife as the freedom and independence associated withlife oriented toward the outdoors gives way to feelings ofviolation, isolation, and infringement. Social gatheringsare affected through the disruption of routines thatnormally provide a sense of belonging and identity—backyard barbecues, church attendance, and visits withfriends and family (Donham et al., 2007).Contract BroilerProduction SystemMost broiler chickens (also calledfryers or frying chickens) raised inthe United States are producedunder contract arrangementswith integrated poultry producingcompanies. These companiestypically control almost everyaspect of production—they own thebreeder flocks, hatcheries, chickens,feed mills, processing plants, andmarketing arrangements.Contract growers producethe chickens from hatchlings tomarketable size in broiler housesusing equipment that meets thespecifications of the integrator. Theproducer owns or leases the land andthe facilities to raise the broilers, andthe integrator owns the chickens andfeed. Growers are also responsiblefor management of the litter (thecombination of manure and beddingmaterials) as well as for the taxes,utilities, and insurance. The amountof litter produced annually for abroiler facility can be substantial; forexample, a broiler farm that has fourhouses (each containing between28,000 and 30,000 chickens) andthat markets 4-pound broilers couldgenerate approximately 340 tonsof manure per year (Dozier III etal., 2001). The litter can be storedusing several methods depending onthe length of storage and quantityof litter produced. Covered oruncovered stockpile, stockpile withground liner, and roofed storagestructures are the three basic optionsfor litter storage. The primary goalsof storing broiler litter are to preventnutrient runoff and leaching and tominimize insect and odor problems.Capital costs are high for growingbroilers, and lenders typically offer10- to 12-year loans with terms thatresult in payments as high as 60% ofthe grower’s gross income, makingit impossible for them to decide togrow other crops once they take outthe loan (Mississippi State UniversityExtension Service, 1997).42

IFAP Impacts on Rural Social CapitalSociologists consider social capital—mutual trust,reciprocity, and shared norms and identity—thefoundation of community and an important ingredient inmeasuring quality of life. Communities with higher levelsof social capital tend to have better indicators of quality oflife—lower poverty rates, fewer incidents of violent crime,and stronger democratic institutions. Social capital alsoemerges as an internal resource in instances of controversy.The social fabric of communities undergoes significantchange as industrialized farms replace family farms. Thesechanges are consistent with those seen in communitieswith high concentrations of poverty regardless ofwhether they are rural or urban. Because capital-intensiveagriculture relies more on technology than on labor, thereare fewer jobs for local people and more low-paid, itinerantjobs, which go to migrant laborers who are willing to workfor low wages (Gilles and Dalecki, 1988; Goldschmidt,1978; Harris and Gilbert, 1982). Other indicators of socialdisruption include increases in stress, sociopsychologicalproblems, and teen pregnancies.For these and other reasons, ifap facilities frequentlygenerate controversy and thus threaten community socialcapital—and the rifts that develop among communitymembers can be deep and long-standing (DeLind et al.,1995). For example, there have been reports of threats toifap facility neighbors in North Carolina (Wing andWolf, 2000). In an in-depth study of six rural counties insouthern Minnesota, Wright and colleagues (Wright et al.,2001) identified three patterns indicative of the decline insocial capital that accompanied the siting of ifap facilitiesin these communities:• widening gaps between ifap and non-ifap producers;• harassment of vocal opponents of ifap facilities; and• perceptions by both cafo supporters and opponentsof hostility, neglect, or inattention by publicinstitutions that resulted in perpetuation of anadversarial and inequitable community climate.All sides involved in controversies over ifap facilitiestend to frame their issues and identities in terms ofrights and entitlements, as described in McMillan andSchulman’s research on the hog industry in NorthCarolina (McMillan and Schulman, 2003). Producersdefend their property rights, including the right to earna living from their land, while neighbors defend theirright to enjoy their own property. DeLind reports that inresponse to local opposition to corporate ifap facilitiesin Parma Township, Michigan, agriculture industryadvocates such as the American Farm Bureau and theNational Pork Producers Council defended the right ofifap facilities to exist without regulation by appealing tothe “right to farm” (DeLind et al., 1995).Such controversy, cast in stark terms of rights, pitsneighbor against neighbor and threatens core ruralvalues of honesty, respect, and reciprocity. ifap facilityneighbors consider it a violation of respect when theirconcerns are labeled emotional, perceptual, and subjective,or are dismissed as invalid or unscientific. Recentfindings presented by Kleiner, Rikoon, and Seipel areillustrative. Their study reports that in two northernMissouri counties where large, corporate-owned swineifap facilities dominate, citizens expressed more negativeattitudes about trust, neighborliness, community division,networks of acquaintanceship, democratic values, andcommunity involvement. In contrast, a county dominatedby independently owned swine operations had themost positive attitudes about trust, neighborliness,community division, and networks of acquaintanceship (et al., 2000).Clash of Values BetweenFamily Farmers andIFAP Facility OwnersIn the small town of Bode, Iowa,two couples, Clarence and CarolineBormann (both age 78) and thelate Leonard and Cecilia (age 70)McGuire, were lifelong Iowa familyfarmers—row crop and livestockproducers—and neighbors. Whena neighboring farm constructedan industrial hog facility to berun jointly with Land O’ Lakes,the two couples grew concernedabout the potential public healthand environmental implications ofsuch a facility, with a liquid manurelagoon, so close to their homes. In1994, they took action against thefarm to prevent its designation as an“Agricultural Area,” which affordedprotection from “nuisance suits.”Despite numerous meetings anddiscussions, construction continued.The facility operators refused tolimit or reduce the facility’s potentialimpact on the neighbors or thesurrounding environment. Instead,they sought statutory protectionby having the land designated an“Agricultural Area” by the CountyBoard of Supervisors. After twoapplications, more than three publichearings, and two district courtrulings, the “Agricultural Area”status was approved.But this approval was short-lived.The couples appealed the legality ofthe designation to the Iowa SupremeCourt, arguing that it violated theConstitutional prohibition againstthe taking of private property by thegovernment without payment of justcompensation. In a strongly wordedopinion, the Iowa Supreme Courtagreed and declared the nuisanceprotection portion of the statute“flagrantly unconstitutional.”The hog farm owner andcorporate partner, together withstate and national agriculturalindustry associations, sought to havethe decision of the Iowa SupremeCourt overturned by the UnitedStates Supreme Court. For morethan four years, the Bormanns andMcGuires pursued their cause (attheir own expense). On December21, 1998, an appeal was filed, withthe backing of various Iowa andnational production groups, to theUS Supreme Court. Finally, in 1999,the United States Supreme Courtdenied the pork groups’ appeal andallowed the Iowa Supreme Courtruling in favor of the farmers to stand.43

An Alternative: Community-Supported Agriculture*Community-supported agriculture(CSA) is a way to connect localfarmers with local consumers,develop a regional food supply, andstrengthen local economies.The roots of CSA go back 30 yearsto Japan, where a group of womengrew concerned about increasingimports and decreasing farmpopulation, and so initiated a directgrowing and purchasing relationshipwith local farms. They called thisrelationship “teikei” or “putting thefarmer’s face on food.” By the 1980s,the concept had traveled to Europe,and then to the United States, wherein 1985 it was called communitysupportedagriculture at the IndianLine Farm in Massachusetts. By2005, there were more than 1,500CSA farms in the United States andCanada.CSA is a commitment between afarm and a community of supportersthat provides a direct link betweenthe production and consumptionof food. CSA members cover afarm’s yearly operating budget bypurchasing a share of the season’sharvest, supporting the farmthroughout the season, sharing boththe costs and the bounty with thefarmer. The farmer or grower (oftenwith the assistance of a core groupof the community) creates a budgetfor the annual production costs(e.g., salaries, distribution costs,investments for seed and tools, landpayments, machinery maintenance),and this budget is allocated amongthe people for whom the farm willprovide. This calculation determinesthe cost of each “share” of theharvest. One share usually providesfor the weekly vegetable needs for afamily of four, but CSA farms may alsooffer flowers, fruit, <strong>meat</strong>, honey,eggs, and dairy products.Community members sign upand pay for their share either in alump sum in the early spring (beforeplanting) or over the course of thegrowing season. They then receivea weekly “bounty” from the farmthroughout the growing season.The types of products received varydepending on both the region andthe type of farm(s) involved, butcrops are planted in succession inorder to ensure a weekly delivery toeach member. The week’s harvestis measured or counted and dividedequally among the members. Theproduce is usually delivered to aspecific location in the communityat a specific time, although somefarms may provide home delivery foran extra fee and some members goto the farm(s) to pick up their share.Arrangements vary by the type ofCSA.Most CSA farms / groups strive forsustainability, both economically andecologically. The farms are typicallymore diversified in order to provide avariety of products over the growingseason, an explicit goal of some CSAnetworks. The direct marketing ofCSA allows farmers to get the fairestprice for their product while enablingthe consumers to know what farmergrew their food and how it wasgrown. In some cases, CSA farms mayoffer apprenticeships to communitymembers who wish to learn aboutfarming and help in the production oftheir own food.The popularity of CSA hasincreased in the last five years asinterest in eating food from sourcescloser to home has been spurred byAlisa Smith and James MacKinnon’sHundred Mile Diet (and associatedwebsite and movement), foodcontamination problems in importedfoods, and books like Animal,Vegetable, Mineral: A Year in the Lifeof Food by Barbara Kingsolver. Withthe rising demand for local food,many restaurants and cafeterias havebegun entering into agreementswith local farms as well. CSA mayalso provide products for farmers’markets, roadside stands, orindependent grocers in order to buildfarm sales and bolster the farms’economic viability.Both farmers and communitiesbenefit from CSA because it:• keeps local food dollars in thelocal economy;• encourages communicationamong farmers;• creates a dialogue betweenfarmers and consumers;• promotes a shared sense ofsocial responsibility and landstewardship among farmers andconsumers;• supports an area’s biodiversity;and• fosters the diversity of agriculturethrough the preservation of bothsmall farms and a wide variety ofcrops.And, not least, the “guaranteedmarket” of a CSA allows farmers toinvest their time in doing the best jobthey can raising their crops instead ofsearching for buyers.*The information in this piece isadapted from the writings ofRobyn Van En, CSA of North America(CSANA); Liz Manes, ColoradoState University CooperativeExtension; and Cathy Roth, Universityof Massachusetts ExtensionAgroecology Program.45

The True Cost of MeatMuch has been written about thesocial costs—environmental, social,and human health—of our hugeappetite for <strong>meat</strong> versus othersources of protein. One thing isclear, Americans eat more <strong>meat</strong> perperson than any other society onthe planet, and part of the reasonfor that is its apparent low cost.Whether that low cost at the grocerystore actually represents the fullcost to society of producing thatsteak or chicken cutlet has beenthe subject of numerous scholarlypapers and much public advocacy.This sidebar examines one dimensionof that controversy, the externalitiesassociated with industrial hogproduction.Externalities are costs orbenefits resulting from a decision oractivity that is not reflected in thetransaction cost (price). The pricefor a pound of hamburger reflectsthe direct cost to the grocery store,including their allowance for profit(mark-up), the cost the store paidto the distributor, the distributor’scost for buying the <strong>meat</strong> from theslaughterhouse, and so on down theline to the farmer who raised theanimal. Along the way, there are anumber of costs that may not be fully“internalized” or reflected in theprice paid by the consumer. Thoseare the subject of this essay.Economists at Tufts University’sGlobal Development andEnvironment Institute looked attwo kinds of externalities, cropsubsidies and environmental impact,associated with industrializedswine production. The 1996 FarmBill established a system of cropsubsidies intended to support highproduction levels while holdingcommodity prices down. Accordingto the Tufts researchers, from1997 until 2005, market prices forsoybeans and corn were less thanthe cost to produce the crop, butfederal subsidies more than madeup for the difference (Starmer andWise, 2007a). The emergence of thecorn ethanol market in 2005 erasedthe disparity between productioncosts and market price for corn, thuseliminating the subsidy.Corn and soybeans are theprincipal ingredients in commercialfeed for hogs. The low cost of cornand soybeans made possible byfederal subsidies saved industrializedswine producers $947 millionannually from 1997 through 2005,or $8.5 billion over that entireperiod. Non-industrialized swineproducers did not enjoy the samesavings because they grew crops toproduce their own feed and did notreceive the subsidy. With about 60million hogs produced annually andmore than 70% of those produced inindustrialized operations, the valueof the subsidy through 2005 wasmore than $22 per animal each year.The bottom line? American taxpayerspaid industrial hog producers nearly12 cents per pound, dressed weight,for every hog produced each yearfrom 1997 through 2005.When looking at theenvironmental externalities, the Tuftsresearchers found that the numbersof animals on the typical industrialfarm produced far more manure thanthe agronomic capacity of the landto absorb the nutrients contained inthe manure. The result is that landapplication of the manure oftenresults in surface and groundwatercontamination, placing theburden of cleanup on the adjacentcommunities. Waste treatment,beyond lagoon storage, wouldadd costs ranging from $2.55 to$4 per hundred weight on a typicalindustrial hog farm (Starmer andWise, 2007b). Those environmentalcosts are currently born by societyas a whole.None of the external costsdiscussed above are reflected in theprice paid at the retail counter for apound of pork. The story would besimilar if we were to look at the costof chicken, eggs, or beef. The appealof industrial farm animal productionsystems may wane, however, as theincreasing demand for alternativeenergy places upward pressure oncommodity prices.47

Commissioners’ ConclusionsThe industrialization of American agriculture hastransformed the character of agriculture itself and,in so doing, the social fabric of rural America. Thefamily-owned farm producing a diverse mix of cropsand food animals is largely gone as an economicentity, replaced by large farm factories that producejust one animal species or crop.Research consistently shows that the social andeconomic well-being of rural communities benefits fromlarger numbers of farmers rather than fewer farms thatproduce increased volumes. In rural communities wherefewer, larger farms have replaced smaller, locally ownedfarms, residents have experienced lower family income,higher poverty rates, lower retail sales, reduced housingquality, and persistent low wages for farm workers.The food animal industry’s shift to a system ofcaptive supply transactions controlled by productioncontracts has shifted economic power from farmers tolivestock processors. Farmers have relinquished theironce autonomous animal husbandry decision-makingauthority in exchange for contracts that provide assuredpayment but require substantial capital investment. Oncethe commitment is made to such capital investment, manyfarmers have no choice but to continue to produce untilthe loan is paid off. Such contracts make access to openand competitive markets nearly impossible for most hogand poultry producers, who must contract with integrators(<strong>meat</strong> packing companies) if they are to sell their product.Quality of life in rural communities has also declined,partly because of the entrenched poverty and lack ofeconomic opportunity, but also because the linkages thatonce bound locally owned farms with the communityhave dissolved in many places and the social fabric ofmany communities has begun to fray. These changes areevident in negative attitudes about trust, neighborliness,community division, networks of acquaintanceship,democratic values, and community involvement, as wellas increased crime and teen pregnancy rates, civil suits,and stress.Although proponents of the industrialization oflivestock agriculture point to its increased economicefficiency and hail ifap as the future of livestockagriculture, the Commission is concerned that thebenefits may not accrue in the same way to affected ruralcommunities. In fact, industrialization actually drawsinvestment and wealth away from communities with ifapfacilities. Along with the adverse social and economicimpacts, individual farmers often find themselves withfewer options because of the capital investment requiredto meet specifications and terms dictated by theirproduction contracts.49

Conclusion:Toward SustainableAnimal AgricultureOn behalf of the Commissionby Fred Kirschenmann, PhD,Distinguished Fellowat the Leopold Centerfor Sustainable Agriculture,Iowa State University,and North Dakota rancher50

Sustainability is a futuristic concept. Webster’s dictionary defines the verb“sustain” as “to maintain,” “to keep in existence,” “to keep going.” By definition,then, sustainability is a journey, an ongoing process, not a prescription or a setof instructions. So when we ask, “How do we sustain animal agriculture?”we are asking how to manage animal agriculture so that it can be maintainedindefinitely and what changes are necessary to accomplish that goal.Sustainable animal agriculture requires that we envision the challenges andchanges the future will bring. In his extensive studies of past civilizations, JaredDiamond has observed that civilizations that correctly assessed their currentsituations, anticipated changes, and started preparing for those changes werethe ones that thrived—they were sustainable. Civilizations that failed in theseefforts were the ones that collapsed—they were not sustainable (Diamond, 1999;Diamond, 2005).What is true for civilizations is likely also true for businessenterprises. So this report would not be complete withoutan assessment of some of the changes likely to emerge inthe decades ahead and recommendations to address thosechanges.To begin, it is important to recognize that ourfood production system today operates in the generalframework of the industrial economy, which begins fromthe assumptions that natural resources and other inputsto fuel economic activities are unlimited and that natureprovides unlimited sinks to absorb the wastes thrownoff by that economic activity. Our modern food system,including industrial animal agriculture, is part of thateconomy.Herman E. Daly has warned for some time that thiseconomy is not sustainable, that we must recognize thathuman economies are subsystems of larger ecosystemsand must adapt to function within ecosystem constraints(Daly, 1999). 6 Because the natural resources that havefueled our food and agriculture systems are now in astate of depletion and nature’s sinks are saturated, Daly’sprediction may soon be realized.This insight is not new, however. As early as 1945,Aldo Leopold recognized both the attractiveness andvulnerability of industrial agriculture (Leopold, 1999):It was inevitable and no doubt desirable that thetremendous momentum of industrialization shouldhave spread to farm life. It is clear to me, however,that it has overshot the mark, in the sense that it isgenerating new insecurities, economic and ecological,in place of those it was meant to abolish. In itsextreme form, it is humanly desolate and economicallyunstable. These extremes will some day die of theirown too-much, not because they are bad for wildlife,but because they are bad for the farmers.In these early years of the 21st century, the insecuritiesLeopold perceived are beginning to manifest themselvesand compel us to reevaluate current crop and animalproduction methods.Among the many changes likely in the next 50years, we believe the following three will be especiallychallenging to the US industrial food and agriculturesystem: the depletion of stored energy and water resources,and changing climate. These changes will be especiallychallenging because America’s successful industrialeconomy of the past century was based on the availabilityof cheap energy, a relatively stable climate, and abundantfresh water, and current methods have assumed thecontinued availability of these resources.The end of cheap energy may well be the first limitedresource to force change in industrial food animalproduction as ifap systems are almost entirely dependenton fossil fuels. The nitrogen used for fertilizer to produceanimal feed is derived from natural gas. Phosphorus andpotash are mined, processed, and transported to farmswith petroleum energy. Pesticides are manufactured frompetroleum resources. Farm equipment is manufacturedand operated with petroleum energy. Feed is producedand trucked to concentrated animal operations with fossilfuels. Manure is collected and hauled to distant locationswith fossil fuels.When fossil fuels were cheap, these inputs to theprocess of agricultural production were available atvery low cost. But independent scholars agree that oil51

52Photo Credit: Dr. Mary Peet, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University

production either already has peaked or will shortly do so(Heinberg, 2004; Roberts, 2004).Of course, there are alternatives to fossil fuel energy—wind, solar, and geothermal energy as well as biofuels—soit’s possible that oil and natural gas could be replaced withalternative sources of energy to keep industrial animalagriculture viable. But the US industrial economy wascreated on a platform of stored, concentrated energy thatproduced a very favorable energy profit ratio (the amountof energy yield less the amount of energy expended tomake it available). Alternative energies, on the other hand,are based on current, dispersed energy, which has a muchlower energy profit ratio. Consequently, economies thatdepend on cheap energy are not likely to fare well in thefuture. This is why the depletion of fossil fuel resourceswill require that America transition not only to alternativefuels to produce food but to a new energy system.The real energy transition will have to be from anenergy input system to an energy exchange system, and thistransition is likely to entail significant system changes inthe US production of crops and livestock. For example,future agricultural production systems are less likely tobe specialized monocultures and more likely to be basedon biological diversity, organized so that each organismexchanges energy with other organisms, forming a web ofsynchronous relationships, instead of relying on energyintensiveinputs.A second natural resource that has been essential toindustrial agriculture is a relatively stable climate. Weoften mistakenly attribute the yield-producing successof the past century entirely to the development of newproduction technologies. But those robust yields were dueat least as much to unusually favorable climate conditionsas they were to technology.A National Academy of Sciences (nas) Panel onClimatic Variation reported in 1975 that “our present[stable] climate is in fact highly abnormal” and that“the earth’s climate has always been changing, andthe magnitude of … the changes can be catastrophic”(emphasis added). The report went on to suggest thatclimate change might be exacerbated by “our ownactivities” and concluded that “the global patterns of foodproduction and population that have evolved are implicitlydependent on the climate of the present century” (emphasisadded) (nas, 1975). In other words, according to the nas,it is this combination of “normal” climate variation plus thechanges caused by industrial economies (greenhouse gasemissions) that could have a significant impact on futureagricultural productivity.While most climatologists acknowledge that it isimpossible to predict exactly how climate change willaffect agricultural production in the near term, theyagree that greater climate fluctuations—“extremes ofprecipitation, both droughts and floods”—are likely. Suchinstability can be especially devastating for the highlyspecialized, genetically uniform, monoculture systemscharacteristic of current industrial crop and livestockproduction.A third natural resource that may challenge ourcurrent agricultural production system is water. LesterBrown points out that although each human needs onlyfour liters of water a day, the US industrial agriculturesystem consumes 2,000 liters per day to meet US dailyfood requirements (Brown, 2006). A significant amountof that water is consumed by production agriculture: over70% of global fresh water resources is used for irrigation.As discussed earlier in this report, the OgallalaAquifer, which supplies water for one of every five irrigatedacres in the United States, is now half depleted and isbeing overdrawn at the rate of 3.1 trillion gallons peryear, 7 according to some reports (Soule and Piper, 1992).Furthermore, a recent Des Moines Register article reportedthat the production of biofuels is putting significantadditional pressure on US water resources, and thatclimate change is likely to further stress these resources(Beeman, 2007). According to the Wall Street Journal,“Kansas is threatening to sue neighboring Nebraska forconsuming more than its share of the Republican River”as farmers consume more water for irrigation 8 (that suithas since been filed); Kansas had previously sued Coloradoover Arkansas River water diverted in Colorado, in part,for agriculture irrigation and use by the city of Denver.Reduced snowpacks in mountainous regions due toclimate change will decrease spring runoff, a primarysource of irrigation water in many parts of the world,further intensifying water shortages.These early indications of stress indicate that energy,water, and climate changes will intersect and affect eachother in many ways and will make industrial productionsystems increasingly vulnerable.But new soil management methods can makemajor contributions to the sustainability of future USfarming systems. Research and on-farm experience haveshown that the management of soils in accordance withclosed recycling systems that build soil organic mattersignificantly enhances the soil’s capacity to absorb andretain moisture, reducing the need for irrigation. Onfarmexperience (as well as nature’s own elasticity) alsoindicates that: (1) diverse systems are more resilient thanmonocultures in the face of adverse climate conditions;(2) energy inputs can be dramatically reduced whenrecycling systems replace input / output systems; and (3)management of soil health based on recycling systemsrequires more mixed crop / livestock systems. Furthermore,new insights from studies in modern ecology andevolutionary biology applied to nutrient recycling andhumus-based soil management could provide additionalinformation that can help in the design of postindustrialfarming systems.Scientists have recognized for some time that thesingle-tactic, specialized, energy-intensive approachof industrial agriculture which relies on technology tointervene in a system to solve a specific problem, suchas eliminating a single pest species, is not sustainable.Joe Lewis and his colleagues, for example, wrote that,while it may seem that an optimal corrective action foran undesired entity is to use a pesticide to eliminate thepest, in fact “such interventionist actions never producesustainable desired effects. Rather, the attempted solutionbecomes the problem.” The alternative, they propose, isConverting Methaneto EnergyMethane digesters are a relativelynew technology used on a fewfarms to process animal waste.The technology allows the farmerto capitalize on the natural processof organic waste decompositionby capturing the methane thatis produced and put it to workas a fuel source. The digesteris essentially a large, sealedmanure container that capturesthe methane gas produced by themanure as it decomposes. Thecaptured methane can power anon-farm electrical generator orheat the digester vessel itself,because the digestion processworks more efficiently at warmertemperatures.Untreated, methane is apotent greenhouse gas, butalso, just as importantly, a goodsource of energy. Manure left in alagoon or spread on a field emitsmethane into the atmosphere.Capturing the methane and usingit for energy reduces the fossilfuel demand for a typical animalfeeding operation, helps to reducegreenhouse gas emissions, andreduces both the odor from themanure and the total volume ofmanure that requires disposal.Although the benefits ofmethane digesters have beenwidely promoted, seriouschallenges remain when it comesto the large volumes of IFAPwaste and its components such asnitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens,arsenic, and other heavy metals.53

“an understanding and shoring up of the full compositeof inherent plant defenses, plant mixtures, soil, naturalenemies, and other components of the system. Thesenatural ‘built in’ regulators are linked in a web of feedbackloops and are renewable and sustainable” (Lewis et al.,1997). Unfortunately, ifap is built on the so-called singletactic model, which seeks to maximize production andsimplify management needed to get there.The management of pests, weeds, or animal diseasesfrom such an ecological perspective involves a web ofrelationships that require more biologically diversesystems. “For example, problems with soil erosion haveresulted in major thrusts in use of winter cover crops andconservation tillage. Preliminary studies indicate thatcover crops also serve as bridge / refugia to stabilize naturalenemy / pest balances and relay these balances into thecrop season” (Lewis et al., 1997). In short, natural systemmanagement can revitalize soil health, reduce weed andother pest pressures, eliminate the need for pesticides, andsupport the transition from an energy-intensive industrialfarming operation to a self-regulating, self-renewingone. A diversified crop / animal system enhances thepossibilities for establishing a self-regulating system.Other benefits, such as greater water conservation,follow from the improved soil health that results fromclosed recycling systems. As research conducted by JohnReganold and his colleagues has demonstrated, soilmanaged by such recycling methods develops richer topsoil, more than twice the organic matter, more biologicalactivity, and far greater moisture absorption and holdingcapacity (Reganold et al., 1987; Reganold et al., 2001).Such soil management methods illustrate the pathto an energy system that operates on the basis of energyexchange instead of energy input. But more innovationis needed. Nature, for example, is a very efficient energymanager; all of its energy comes from sunlight, whichis processed into carbon through photosynthesis andbecomes available to various organisms that exchangeenergy through a web of relationships. Bison on the prairieobtain their energy from the grass, which gets its energyfrom the soil. Bison deposit their excrement on the grassand thus provide energy for insects and other organisms,which, in turn, convert it to energy that enriches the soilto produce more grass. These are the energy exchangesystems that must be explored and adapted for use inpostindustrial farming systems. But very little researchis currently devoted to exploring such energy exchangesfor farms.Fortunately, a few farmers have already developedenergy exchange systems and appear to be quite successfulin managing their operations with very little fossil fuelinput (Kirschenmann, 2007). But converting farms to thisnew energy model on a national scale will require a majortransformation. The highly specialized, energy-intensivemonocultures will need to convert to complex, highlydiversified operations that function on energy exchange.Research has established the practicality and multiplebenefits of such integrated crop-livestock operations, butfurther research is needed to explore how to adapt thisnew model of farming to various climates and ecosystems(Russelle et al., 2007).In the meantime, current intensive confined animalfeeding operations, can take steps to begin transitioningto a more sustainable future. In our visits to many suchoperations, we saw innovative adaptations of some of theseprinciples. For example, a large feedlot we visited, whichholds 90,000 head of cattle in confinement, composts allof its manure and sells it in a thriving compost market,thus improving its bottom line. As fertilizer costs go updue to increased energy costs, more farmers may turnto such sources of fertilizer to reduce their costs. TheCommission visited an integrated producer of 90,000dozen eggs a day, that composts its manure, mixing itwith wood chips from ground-up wooden pallets, andsells the compost as garden and landscaping mulch, againgenerating additional income for the company. A 4,500-cow confinement dairy operation recycles its bedding sandand plastic baling wire. Both the dairy and the feedlot alsocover their silage piles to reduce pollution.Farmers in many parts of the world are adoptingdeep-bedded hoop barn technologies for raising theiranimals in confinement. As explained earlier in thisreport, hoop barns are much less expensive to construct,have demonstrated production efficiencies comparableto those of nonbedded confinement systems, and aremore welfare-friendly for animals (Lay Jr. et al., 2000).The deep-bedded systems allow animals to exercise moreof their natural functions, absorb urine and manure forcomposting and building soil quality on nearby land,and provide warmth for the animals in cold weather.Such hoop structures are used in hog, beef, dairy, andsome poultry operations and have demonstrated reducedenvironmental impact and risk. 9Tweaking the current monoculture confinementoperations with such methods will be very useful in theshort term, but as energy, water, and climate resourcesundergo dramatic changes, it is the Commission’sjudgment that US agricultural production will need totransition to much more biologically diverse systems,organized into biological synergies that exchange energy,improve soil quality, and conserve water and otherresources. As Herman Daly said, long-term sustainabilitywill require a transformation from an industrial economyto an ecological economy.55

The Recommendationsof the Commission56

The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production was charged withexamining the current US system of food animal production and its impact onpublic health, the environment, animal welfare, and rural communities. TheCommission’s recommendations are intended to ensure that the system is ableto provide safe, affordable <strong>meat</strong>, dairy, and poultry products in a sustainableway. Commissioners recognize that the current system, like agriculture as awhole, has achieved a remarkable record of increasing productivity and loweringprices at the supermarket, with the result that Americans’ expenditures for <strong>meat</strong>,poultry, dairy, and eggs as an inflation-adjusted share of their disposable incomewere lower in 2007 than in 1950.But as industrial farm animal production (ifap) systems have increasedcost-efficient agricultural food production, they have also given rise to problemsthat are beginning to require attention by policymakers and the industry. Giventhe relatively rapid emergence of the technologies for industrial farm animalproduction, and the dependence on chemical inputs, energy, and water, manyifap systems are not sustainable environmentally or economically.Much of the basis for concentrated animal production originally derivedfrom inexpensive corn and other plentiful feed grain crops, cheap energy, andfree, abundant water. Inexpensive corn, for example, allowed the developmentof specially formulated feeds that increase growth rates and shorten the timerequired to get animals to market. But the emerging market for biofuels haschanged that equation because the value of corn and other commodity cropsis now tied to their energy value, often resulting in higher prices. Similarly,ifap systems also depend on abundant freshwater resources and on inexpensive57

58fossil fuels for energy. As supplies of both become scarce, their rising costsraise questions about the sustainability of the current production process.Sustainability will require new approaches that use less water and energy.Industrial farm animal production systems are also highly dependenton intensive animal confinement, which commonly requires the use ofantimicrobials to prevent disease, not just to treat it. Together with the useof antimicrobials to promote animal growth, these practices acceleratethe emergence of resistant microbes, with obvious risks for both animalsand humans.In addition, intensive confinement systems increase negative stress levelsin the animals, posing an ethical dilemma for producers and consumers.This dilemma can be summed up by asking ourselves if we owe the animalsin our care a decent life. If the answer is yes, there are standards by whichone can measure the quality of that life. By most measures, confined animalproduction systems in common use today fall short of current ethical andsocietal standards.Furthermore, the concentrated animal waste and associated possiblecontaminants from ifap systems pose a substantial environmental problemfor air quality, surface and subsurface water quality, and the health of workers,neighboring residents, and the general public.Finally, the costs to rural America have been significant. Although manyrural communities embraced industrial farming as a source of much-neededeconomic development, the results have often been the reverse. Communitieswith greater concentrations of industrial farming operations have experienced

higher levels of unemployment and increased poverty. Associated socialconcerns—from elevated crime and teen pregnancy rates to increased numbersof itinerant laborers—are problematic in many communities and placegreater demands on public services. The economic multiplier of local revenuegenerated by a corporate-owned farming operation is substantially lower thanthat of a locally owned operation. Reduced civic participation rates, higherlevels of stress, and other less tangible impacts have all been associated withhigh concentrations of industrial farm production.The Commissioners have taken all these issues into account in developingthe recommendations that follow.59

The Recommendationsof the CommissionPublic Health60

Numerous known infectious diseases can be transmittedbetween humans and animals; in fact, of the more than 1,400documented human pathogens, about 64% are zoonotic.Recommendation #1.Restrict the use of antimicrobials infood animal production to reducethe risk of antimicrobial resistanceto medically important antibiotics.a. Phase out and ban use of antimicrobials fornontherapeutic (i.e., growth promoting) use in foodanimals 10 (see pcifap definition of “nontherapeutic”).b. Immediately ban any new approvals of antimicrobialsfor nontherapeutic uses in food animals 10 andretroactively investigate antimicrobials previouslyapproved.c. Strengthen recommendations in fda Guidance#152 to be enforceable by fda, in particular theinvestigation of previously approved animal drugs.d. To facilitate reduction in ifap use of antibioticsand educate producers on how to raise food animalswithout using nontherapeutic antibiotics, usda’sextension service should be tasked to create andexpand programs that teach producers the husbandrymethods and best practices necessary to maintainthe high level of efficiency and productivity theyenjoy today.BackgroundIn 1986, Sweden banned the use of antibiotics in foodanimal production except for therapeutic purposes andDenmark followed suit in 1998. A who (2002) reporton the ban in Denmark found that “the terminationof antimicrobial growth promoters in Denmark hasdramatically reduced the food animal reservoir ofenterococci resistant to these growth promoters, andtherefore reduced a reservoir of genetic determinants(resistance genes) that encode antimicrobial resistanceto several clinically important antimicrobial agents inhumans.” The report also determined that the overallhealth of the animals (mainly swine) was not affected andthe cost to producers was not significant. Effective January1, 2006, the European Union also banned the use ofgrowth-promoting antibiotics (Meatnews.com, 2005).In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences (nas)Institute of Medicine (iom) noted that antibiotic-resistantbacteria increase US health care costs by a minimumof $4 billion to $5 billion annually (iom, 1998). A yearlater, the nas estimated that eliminating the use ofantimicrobials as feed additives would cost each Americanconsumer less than $5 to $10 per year, significantly lessthan the additional health care costs attributable toantimicrobial resistance (nas, 1999). In a 2007 analysisof the literature, another study found that a hospital staywas $6,000 to $10,000 more expensive for a personinfected with a resistant bacterium as opposed to anantibiotic-susceptible infection (Cosgrove et al., 2005).The American Medical Association, American PublicHealth Association, National Association of Countyand City Health Officials, and National Campaign forSustainable Agriculture are among the more than 300organizations representing health, consumer, agricultural,environmental, humane, and other interests supportingenactment of legislation to phase out nontherapeutic usein farm animals of medically important antibiotics andcalling for an immediate ban on antibiotics vital to humanhealth.The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical TreatmentAct of 2007 (pamta) amends the Federal Food, Drug,and Cosmetic Act to withdraw approvals for feed-additiveuse of seven specific classes of antibiotics 11 —penicillins,tetracyclines, macrolides, lincosamides, streptogramins,aminoglycosides, and sulfonamides—each of whichcontains antibiotics also used in human medicine (2007a).The pamta provides for the automatic and immediaterestriction of any other antibiotic used only in animals ifthe drug becomes important in human medicine, unlessfda determines that such use will not contribute to thedevelopment of resistance in microbes that have thepotential to affect humans. fda Guidance #152 definesan antibiotic as potentially important in human medicineif fda issues an Investigational New Drug determinationor receives a New Drug Application for the compound.Most antibiotics currently used in animal productionsystems for nontherapeutic purposes were approved beforethe Food and Drug Administration (fda) began givingin-depth consideration to resistance during the drugapproval process. fda has not established a schedule forreviewing existing approvals, although Guidance #152notes the importance of doing so. Specifically, Guidance#152 sets forth the responsibility of the fda Center forVeterinary Medicine (cvm), which is charged withregulating antimicrobials approved for use in animals:“prior to approving an antimicrobial new animal drugapplication, fda must determine that the drug is safeand effective for its intended use in the animal. TheAgency must also determine that the antimicrobial new61

The Infectious Disease Society of America (isda) recently calledantibiotic-resistant infections an epidemic in the United States.animal drug intended for use in food-producing animalsis safe with regard to human health” (fda-cvm, 2003).The Guidance also says that “fda believes that humanexposure through the ingestion of antimicrobial-resistantbacteria from animal-derived foods represents the mostsignificant pathway for human exposure to bacteriathat has emerged or been selected as a consequence ofantimicrobial drug use in animals.” However, it goes onto warn that the “fda’s guidance documents, includingthis guidance, do not establish legally enforceableresponsibilities. Instead, the guidance describes theAgency’s current thinking on the topic and shouldbe viewed only as guidance, unless specific regulatoryor statutory requirements are cited. The use of theword ‘should’ in Agency guidance means that somethingis suggested or recommended, but not required”(fda-cvm, 2003).The Commission believes that the “recommendations”in Guidance #152 should be made legally enforceableand applied retroactively to previously approvedantimicrobials. Additional funding for fda is requiredto achieve this recommendation.Recommendation #2.Clarify antimicrobial definitionsto provide clear estimates ofuse and facilitate clear policieson antimicrobial use.a. The Commission defines as nontherapeutic 10 any useof antimicrobials in food animals in the absence ofmicrobial disease or known (documented) microbialdisease exposure; thus, any use of the drug as anadditive for growth promotion, feed efficiency, weightgain, routine disease prevention in the absence ofdocumented exposure, or other routine purpose isconsidered nontherapeutic. 12b. The Commission defines as therapeutic the use ofantimicrobials in food animals with diagnosedmicrobial disease.c. The Commission defines as prophylactic the use ofantimicrobials in healthy animals in advance of anexpected exposure to an infectious agent or aftersuch an exposure but before onset of laboratoryconfirmedclinical disease as determined by a licensedprofessional.BackgroundIn 2000, the who, United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization (fao), and World Organization forAnimal Health (oie, Fr. Office International desÉpizooties) agreed on definitions of antimicrobial use inanimal agriculture based on a consensus (who, 2000).Government agencies in the United States, includingusda and fda, govern aspects of antimicrobial use infood animals but have varying definitions of such use.Consistent definitions should be adopted for the use of allUS oversight groups that estimate types of antimicrobialuse and for the development of law and policy. Congressrecently revived a bill to address the antimicrobialresistance problem: the Preservation of Antibioticsfor Medical Treatment Act of 2007 (pamta) definesnontherapeutic use as “any use of the drug as a feed orwater additive for an animal in the absence of any clinicalsign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, feedefficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or otherroutine purpose” (2007 a). If the bill becomes law, thiswill be the legal definition of nontherapeutic use for allexecutive agencies and, therefore, legally enforceable.63

64Recommendation #3.Improve monitoring and reportingof antimicrobial use in food animalproduction in order to accuratelyassess the quantity and methods ofantimicrobial use in animal agriculture.a. Require pharmaceutical companies that sellantimicrobials for use in food animals to providea calendar-year annual report of the quantity sold.Companies currently report antibiotic sales data onan annual basis from the date of the drug’s approval,which makes data integration difficult. fda isresponsible for oversight of the use of antimicrobialsin food animals and needs consistent data on which toreport use.b. Require reporting of antimicrobial use in foodanimal production, including antimicrobials addedto food and water, and incorporate the reported datain usda’s National Animal Identification System(nais). 13 The fda-cvm regulates feed additives butdoes not have the budget or personnel to oversee theirdisposition after purchase. In addition, cvm and usdaare responsible for monitoring the use of prescribedantimicrobials in livestock production but rely onproducers and veterinarians to keep records of theantibiotics used and for what purpose.c. Institute better integration, monitoring, and oversightby government agencies by developing a comprehensiveplan to monitor antimicrobial use in food animals,as called for in a 1999 National Research Council(nrc) report (nas, 1999). An integrated nationaldatabase of antimicrobial resistance data and researchwould greatly improve the organization, amount,and types of data collected and would facilitatenecessary policy changes by increasing data cohesionand accuracy. Further, priority should be given tolinking data on both antimicrobial use and resistancein the National Antimicrobial Resistance MonitoringSystem (narms). This could be accomplished by fullimplementation of Priority Action 5 of A Public HealthAction Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, whichcalls for the establishment of a monitoring systemand the assessment of ways to collect and protect theconfidentiality of usage data (cdc / fda / nih, 1999).Since usda already provides antimicrobial use datain fruit and vegetable production, it seems logicalthat usage information can be obtained from eitheragricultural producers and / or the pharmaceuticalindustry without undue burden.BackgroundThere are no reliable data on antimicrobial use inUS food animal production. Rather, various groupshave reported estimates of use based on inconsistentstandards. For example, in 2001, the Union of ConcernedScientists (ucs) estimated that 24.6 million pounds ofantimicrobials were used per year for nontherapeuticpurposes (Mellon et al., 2001) in animal agriculture (onlycattle, swine, and poultry), whereas the Animal HealthInstitute (ahi) figure for the same year was only 21.8million pounds for all animals and uses (therapeutic andnontherapeutic) (ahi, 2002). These disparities make itdifficult to get a true picture of the state and extent ofantimicrobial use and its relationship to antimicrobialresistance in industrial farm animal production.

The potential for pathogen transfer from animals to humansis increased in ifap because so many animalsare raised together in confined areas.Recommendation #4.Improve monitoring and surveillanceof antimicrobial resistance in the foodsupply, the environment, and animaland human populations in order torefine knowledge of antimicrobialresistance and its impacts on humanhealth.a. Integrate, expand, and increase the funding for currentmonitoring programs.b. Establish a permanent interdisciplinary oversightgroup with protection from political pressure, asrecommended in the 1999 nrc report The Useof Drugs in Food Animals: Risks and Benefits. Thegroup members should represent agencies involvedin food animal drug regulation (e.g., fda, thecdc, usda), similar to the Interagency Task Force(cdc / fda / nih, 1999). In order to gather usefulnational data on antimicrobial resistance in theUnited States, the group should review progress ondata collection and reporting, and should coordinateboth the organisms tested and the regions wheretesting is concentrated, in order to better integrate thedata. Agency members should coordinate with eachother and with the nais to produce an annual reportthat includes integrated data on human and animalantimicrobial use and resistance by region. Finally,the group should receive appropriate funding fromCongress to ensure transparency in funding as well asscientific independence.c. Revise existing programs and develop a comprehensiveplan to incorporate monitoring of the farmenvironment (soils and plants) and nearby watersupplies with the monitoring of organisms in farmanimals.d. Improve testing and tracking of antimicrobial-resistantinfections in health care settings. Better trackingof amr infections will give health professionalsand policymakers a clearer picture of the role ofantimicrobial-resistant organisms in animal andhuman health and will support more effectivedecisions about the use of antimicrobials.Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (narms),a program run by fda in collaboration with cdc andusda. cdc is responsible for monitoring resistancein humans, but other federal agencies also conductantimicrobial resistance research activities. For instance,usda’s National Animal Health Monitoring System(nahms) compiles food animal population statistics,animal health indicators, and antimicrobial resistancedata. usda’s Collaboration in Animal Health andFood Safety Epidemiology (cahfse) is a joint effort ofthe department’s Animal and Plant Health InspectionService (aphis), Agricultural Research Service (ars),and Food Safety and Inspection Service (fsis) to monitorbacteria that pose a food safety risk, including amrbacteria. The United States Geological Survey (usgs)studies the spread of antimicrobial-resistant organismsin the environment. To achieve a comprehensive plan formonitoring and responding to antimicrobial resistance inthe food supply, the environment, and animal and humanpopulations, these agencies should work together to createan integrated plan with independent oversight, and shouldupgrade from a passive form of monitoring to an active,comprehensive, uniform, mandatory approach.The US and state geological surveys (Krapac etal., 2004; usgs, 2006) as well as several independentgroups (Batt, Snow et al., 2006; Centner 2006; Peak,Knapp et al., 2007) have looked closely at the spread ofantimicrobial-resistant organisms in the environment,specifically in waterways, presumably from runoff orflooding. A recent study by the University of Georgiasuggested that even chickens raised without exposureto antibiotics were populated with resistant bacteria.The authors suggested that an incomplete cleaningof the farm environment could have allowed resistantbacteria to persist and reinfect naïve hosts (Idris, Lu etal., 2006; Smith, Drum et al., 2007). In Denmark, ittook several years after the withdrawal of antimicrobialsfor antimicrobial resistance to diminish in farm animalpopulations. These experiences emphasize the importanceof monitoring the environment for antimicrobialcontamination and responding with careful andcomprehensive planning.BackgroundMonitoring and surveillance of antimicrobial resistancein the United States are covered by the National65

66Recommendation #5.Increase veterinary oversight ofall antimicrobial use in food animalproduction to prevent overuseand misuse of antimicrobials.a. Restrict public access to agricultural sources ofantimicrobials.b. Enforce restricted access to prescription drugs. By law,only a veterinarian may order the extralabel use of aprescribed drug in animals, but, in fact, prescriptiondrugs are widely available for purchase online, directlyfrom the distributors or pharmaceutical companies,or in feed supply stores without a prescription.Without stricter requirements on the purchase ofantimicrobials, extralabel (i.e., nontherapeutic) useof these drugs is possible and even probable. For thatreason, no antibiotics should be available for over-thecounterpurchase.c. Enforce veterinary oversight and authorization ofall decisions to use antimicrobials in food animalproduction. The extralabel drug use (eldu) ruleunder the Animal Medicinal Drug Use ClarificationAct (amduca) permits veterinarians to go beyondlabel directions in using animal drugs and to uselegally obtained human drugs in animals. However,the rule does not permit eldu in animal feed or toenhance production. eldu is limited to cases in whichthe health of the animal is threatened or in whichsuffering or death may result from lack of treatment.Veterinarians should consider eldu in food-producinganimals only when no approved drug is available thathas the same active ingredient in the required dosageform and concentration or that is clinically effectivefor the intended use (1994). North Carolina StateUniversity, the University of California-Davis, and theUniversity of Florida run the Food Animal ResidueAvoidance Databank (farad) (http: / / www.farad.org / ), which includes useful information for foodanimal veterinarians, including vetgram, which listslabel information for all food animal drugs. To beeffective, amduca and eldu must be enforced. Inaddition, as technology allows, the fda-cvm shouldcompel veterinarians to submit prescription andtreatment information on farm animals to a nationaldatabase to allow better tracking of antibiotic use aswell as better oversight by veterinarians. Veterinaryeducation for food animal production should teachprescription laws and reporting requirements.d. Encourage veterinary consultation in these decisions.amduca requires the veterinarian to properly labeldrugs used in a manner inconsistent with the labeling(i.e., extralabel) and to give the livestock ownercomplete instructions about proper use of the drug.Further, eldu must take place in the context of avalid, current veterinarian-client-patient relationship—the veterinarian must have sufficient knowledge ofthe animal to make a preliminary diagnosis that willdetermine the intended use of the drugs. The producershould be encouraged to work with the veterinarianboth to ensure the health of the animal(s) and toconform to antibiotic requirements. For example, theNational Pork Board Pork Quality Assurance programencourages consultation with veterinarians to maintaina comprehensive herd health program (npb, 2005).BackgroundPresenters at a 2003 nrc workshop concluded thatunlike human use of antibiotics, nontherapeutic uses inanimals typically do not require a prescription (certainantimicrobials are sold over the counter and widely usedfor purposes or administered in ways not described onthe label) (Anderson et al., 2003). Before amduca,veterinarians were not legally permitted to use an animaldrug in any way except as indicated on the label. Afterthe passage of amduca, veterinarians gained the rightto prescribe / dispense drugs for “extralabel” use, but fdalimits such use to protect public health (1994). elduoccurs when the drug’s actual or intended use is not inaccordance with the approved labeling. For instance,eldu refers to administration of a drug for a species notlisted on the label; for an indication, disease, or othercondition not on the label; at a dosage level or frequencynot on the label; or by a route of administration not on thelabel. Over-the-counter sale of antimicrobials opens thedoor to the nontherapeutic, unregulated use of antibioticsin farm animals.

If the full cost of externalized environmental and health costswere taken into account, those same products would be far more expensive.Recommendation #6.Implement a disease-monitoringprogram and a fully integrated androbust national database for foodanimals to allow 48-hour trace-backthrough phases of their production.a. Implement a tracking system for animals as individualsor units from birth until consumption, includingmovement, illnesses, breeding, feeding practices,slaughter condition and location, and point of sale.Use the same numbering system as for usda’s nais(see above), but expand it to provide more informationto appropriate users (nais tracks animals based onlyon their movement).b. Require federal oversight of all aspects of this trackingsystem, with stringent protections for producersagainst lawsuits. The tracking arm of the nais,which has not yet been implemented, is designed tobe administered by private industry in collaborationwith state governments. nais has garnered supportfrom both, but the program should be expandedsignificantly and monitored by a separate federalagency to enhance confidentiality for producers. TheBritish Cattle Movement Service (www.bcms.gov.uk)could serve as a model for this system.c. Require registration of premises and animals by 2009and implement animal tracking by 2010. usda’saphis has created a voluntary animal id systemin collaboration with the farm animal industry, soimplementation of a mandatory federal system shouldbe feasible within a relatively short time frame.d. Allocate special funding to small farms to facilitatetheir participation in the national tracking system,which would have a much greater financial impacton them, particularly the costs of the identificationmethod (e.g., ear tag, microchip, retinal scan). Suchfunding should be made available concurrent with theannouncement of mandatory registration.BackgroundIn May 2005, aphis began implementing an animaltracking system, the nais (usda, aphis 2006), whichwill track premises and 27 species of animals (includingcattle, goats, sheep, swine, poultry, deer, and elk). Dataare linked to several databases run by private technologycompanies, while usda shops for a technology companywith data warehousing expertise to run the full nationaldatabase in the future. The United Kingdom uses asimilar database for its Cattle Tracing System (doe andfra, 2001).nais registration is voluntary at the time of thiswriting, and the Bush administration announced onNovember 22, 2006, that it would not require it ofproducers. The major industry concerns are abouttrust and confidentiality, says John Clifford, deputyadministrator for aphis veterinary services. However,proposals to make registration mandatory by 2009 havebeen floated by usda; the department has officially statedthat, “If the marketplace, along with State and Federalidentification programs, does not provide adequateincentives for achieving complete participation, usda maybe required to implement regulations” (usda, 2006).The goal of the nais is a 48-hour trace-back toidentify exposures since the 48-hour time frame is vitalto containing the spread of infection (usda, 2005).usda advertises the nais as a “valuable tool for other‘non-nais’ purposes—such as animal management,genetic improvement, and marketing opportunities,” andnotes that producers could improve the quality of theirproduct and thus increase sales using the tracking. Manyindustry groups support the nais for these reasons, butsmall producers worry about the costs, oversight of datacollection, and maintenance (Western Organization ofResource Councils, May 2006).The first two phases of the nais call for theregistration of premises and of individual animals using aUS Animal Identification Number (usain). Accordingto usda, “[t]he US Animal Identification Number(usain) will evolve into the sole national numberingsystem for the official identification of individual animalsin the United States. The usain follows the InternationalOrganization for Standardization (iso) Standard forRadio Frequency [tracking] of Animals and can thusbe encoded in an iso transponder or printed on a visualtag” (usda, aphis 2006). The Wisconsin Livestockid Consortium developed this US Animal id Number,which has 15 digits, the first three of which are the countrycode (840 for the United States). The final phase will bethe animal tracking phase.A national animal identification system wasfirst proposed in response to bovine spongiformencephalopathy (mad cow disease, or bse) scares anddeadly E.Coli outbreaks in the 1990s. The desire to67

identify contaminated <strong>meat</strong> quickly and quell an outbreakwas the main reason for proposing Animal id (aid),followed by the desire to market American <strong>meat</strong> abroad,where aid was becoming more and more common.Threats from European markets, in particular, to ban US<strong>meat</strong> unless it was more stringently monitored led to theproposal of an animal identification system, and usdalobbied to be in charge of a voluntary program betweenprivate industry and the federal government.The ability to market “safe” <strong>meat</strong> at home and abroadremains a good reason to institute a mandatory federalanimal identification system. Safety of the food supplyin terms of public health is the most important reasonthat the system should be mandatory and controlled bythe federal government. The government should be ableto track disease outbreaks via this system, which wouldalso have information on feeding / rearing practices andantimicrobial use. In short, an animal identificationsystem would protect the American public and allow forbetter data on animal protein production in general.Recommendation #7.Fully enforce current federal and stateenvironmental exposure regulationsand legislation, and increase monitoringof the possible public health effects ofIFAP on people who live and work in ornear these operations.a. Because ifap workers—farmers, caretakers, processingplant workers, veterinarians, federal, state, and privateemergency response personnel, and animal diagnosticlaboratory personnel—are exposed to and maybe infected by zoonotic, novel, or other infectiousagents, they should be a priority target population forheightened monitoring, annual influenza vaccines, andtraining in the use of personal protective equipment.ifap workers who have the highest risk of exposureto a novel virus or other infectious agent should bepriority targets for health information and education,pandemic vaccines, and antiviral drugs.b. ifap employers and responsible health departmentsneed to coordinate the monitoring and tracking of allifap facility employees to document disease outbreaksand prevent the spread of a novel zoonotic disease.c. Occupational health and safety programs, includinginformation about risks to health and about resources,should be more widely available to ifap workers.Occupational safety and health information must alsobe disseminated in ways that allow people with littleor no education or English proficiency to understandtheir risks and why precautions must be taken. Becauseof the well-documented health and safety risks amongifap workers, the Occupational Health and SafetyAdministration should develop health and safetystandards for ifap facilities as allowable by law.d. Current legislation and regulations concerningsurveillance and health and safety programs should beimplemented and should prioritize ifap workers.BackgroundIn most jurisdictions, few, if any, restrictions on ifapfacilities address the health of ifap workers or the public.Localities are therefore often unprepared to properly dealwith ifap impacts on local services and the health ofpeople in the community.68

Because of the large numbers of animals in a typical ifapfacility, pathogens can infect hundreds or thousands of animalseven though the infection rate may be fairly low.Recommendation #8.Increase research on the public healtheffects of IFAP on people living andworking on or near these operations,and incorporate the findings into a newsystem for siting and regulating IFAP.a. Support research to characterize ifap air emissionsand exposures from the handling and distributionof manure on fields—including irritant gases(ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, at a minimum),bioaerosols (endotoxin, at a minimum), and respirableparticulates—for epidemiological studies of exposedcommunities near ifap facilities. Such research shouldinclude characterization of mixed exposures, studiesof particulates in rural areas, and standardization andharmonization of exposure assessment methods andinstrumentation to the degree possible.b. Support research to identify and validate the mostapplicable dispersion models for ifap facilities andtheir manure emissions. Such modeling researchmust take into account multiple ifap facilitiesand their manure management plans in a givenarea, meteorological conditions, and chemicaltransformation of pollutants, and should be evaluatedwith prediction error determined through comparisonof predicted values with actual monitoring data.Such models would be useful to state and federalregulatory agencies to determine the results of bestmanagement practices, to assess health impacts onexposed populations, and to model setback distancesbefore the construction of new facilities. There is afurther need for models that enable evaluation ofconcentration / exposure scenarios after an event thattriggers asthma episodes or nuisance complaints.c. Support research on the respiratory health andfunction of populations that live near ifap facilities,including children and sensitive individuals. Suchstudies are powerful epidemiological approaches toassess the impact of air pollutants on respiratory healthand must include appropriate exposure assessments,exposure modeling, and use of time-activity patternswith personal exposure monitoring to better calibratemodeling of exposures. Exposure assessment dataneed to be linked with measures of respiratory healthoutcome and function data, including standardizedassessment of respiratory symptoms and lungfunction, assessment of allergic / immunologicalmarkers of response, and measurement of markersof inflammation, including the use of noninvasiveapproaches such as tear fluid, nasal lavage, and exhaledbreath condensate.d. Support systematic and sustained studies of ecosystemhealth near ifap facilities, including toxicologic,infectious, and chemical assessments, to better assessthe fate and transport of toxicologic, infectious, andchemical agents that may adversely affect humanhealth. Systematic monitoring programs should beinstituted to assess private well water quality in highriskareas, supplemented by biomonitoring programsto assess actual exposure doses from water sources.BackgroundWhile there is an increasing amount of research alreadytaking place on ifap’s impacts on the people that workand live on or near these facilities, there is a need to morefully define the extent to which ifap poses a threat tothose populations. There is clear epidemiological evidencethat ifap facilities are associated with increased asthmaoutcome risk among those living nearby, but there is aneed to develop and understand exposure and healthoutcome relationships. These topics should be addressedby scientific research.69

Recommendation #9.Strengthen the relationships betweenphysicians, veterinarians, and publichealth professionals to deal withpossible IFAP risks to public health.a. To better understand the cross-species spread ofdisease, expand and increase funding for dualveterinary / public health degree programs.b. Fund and implement federal and state trainingprograms to increase the number of practicing foodanimal veterinarians (2007 b).c. Initiate and expand federal coordination betweenHealth and Human Services (hhs), fda, cdc,and usda to better anticipate, detect, and deal withzoonotic disease. narms is not extensive enough tobe effective for outbreak detection; it serves a generalmonitoring function. Include all the data from thevarious federal agencies in the ifap clearinghouse(outlined among the environment recommendations)for use by a newly created Food Safety Administration(Recommendation #10) and the states.d. Promote international coordination on zoonoticdiseases and food safety. As an increasing amount ofUS food is imported, it is vital to hold this food to thesame standards as domestically produced food.e. Provide more training through land-grant universitiesand schools of public health to producers, communityhealth workers, health professionals, and otherappropriate personnel to promote detection of diseaseas a first line of defense against emerging zoonoticdiseases and other ifap-related occupational healthand safety outcomes.Recommendation #10.Create a Food Safety Administrationthat combines the food inspectionand safety responsibilities of thefederal government, USDA, FDA, EPA,and other federal agencies into oneagency to improve the safety of theUS food supply.BackgroundThe current system to ensure the safety of US food isdisjointed and dysfunctional; for example, fda regulates<strong>meat</strong>less frozen pizza whereas usda has jurisdiction overfrozen pizza with <strong>meat</strong>. This fractured system has failedto ensure food safety, and a solution requires a thoroughnational debate about how the most effective and efficientfood safety agency wouldbe constructed.BackgroundThese three groups of health professionals (physicians,veterinarians, and public health professionals) have alreadybegun to collaborate, and such collaboration should bepromoted and extended as quickly as possible to protectthe public’s health as well as that of the food animalpopulation. The American Medical Association’s andAmerican Veterinary Medical Association’s One HealthInitiative is a very good beginning, and the Commissionrecommends the following to further extend thiscollaboration.71

72Recommendation #11.Develop a flexible risk-based systemfor food safety from farm to fork toimprove the safety of animal proteinproduced by IFAP facilities.a. Any risk-based, farm-to-fork food safety system mustallow for size differences among production systems—a “one-size-fits-all” system will not be appropriate forall operations. The system must be flexible enough forsmall and local producers to get their products to themarketplace.b. Attack food safety issues at their source, insteadof trying to fix a problem after it has occurred, byinstituting better sanitary and health practices at thefarm level. Ranch operating plans may provide oneapproach to on-farm food safety; fda’s 2004 proposedrule for the prevention of Salmonella enteritidis inshell eggs is another example (http: / / www.cfsan.fda.gov / ~lrd / fr04922b.html).c. Ensure that diagnostic tools are sensitive and specificand are continuously evaluated to detect newlyemerging variants of microbial agents of food origin.d. Make resources available through competitive grantsto encourage the development of practical but rigorousmonitoring systems and rapid diagnostic tools. Provideresources for the application of newly identified ordeveloped technologies and processes and for thetraining of inspectors and quality control staff offacilities.e. Introduce greater transparency in feed ingredients.Often producers do not even know what additives theyare feeding the animals since the feed arrives premixedfrom the integrator. One option would be to extendcertain provisions of the Food, Drug, and CosmeticAct to the farm.f. Encourage the food animal production industry(contractors, producers, and integrators) to committo finding ways to minimize the risk of outbreaks ofzoonotic disease and other ifap-related public healththreats to vulnerable communities, such as those whereifap facilities are the most concentrated and wherelocal citizens are least able to protect their rights (e.g.,lower-income and / or minority areas).g. Include both imported and domestically producedfoods of animal origin in the enhanced monitoringsystems.BackgroundRecent food-borne illness outbreaks and <strong>meat</strong> recallshave called into question the reliability of our system forensuring the safety of domestic and imported <strong>meat</strong>. ifapfacilities can have a variety of effects on public health ifprecautions are not taken to protect the health of theirfood animals. Livestock production systems must beassessed for vulnerabilities beyond the naturally occurringdisease agents. The US production of food has been amodel for the world, but a number of countries have nowinstituted better practices. The food production system isone of our most vulnerable critical infrastructure systemsand requires preparation and protection from possibledomestic or foreign bioterrorism. Confidence in the safetyof our food supply must be maintained and, in some cases,restored.

The ongoing addition of antimicrobial agents to ifap livestockfoodstuffs to promote growth also promotes the emergence of resistant strainsof pathogens, presenting a significant risk to human health.Recommendation #12.Improve the safety of our food supplyand reduce use of antimicrobials bymore aggressively mitigating productiondiseases (disorders associated with IFAPmanagement and breeding).a. More attention should be given to antimicrobialresistantand other diseases on the farm. Too oftenattempts are made to address the effects of productiondiseases after they arise (at processing), rather thanpreventing them from occurring in the first place.b. Research into systems that minimize productiondiseases should be expanded, implemented, andadvocated by the state and the federal governments.BackgroundProduction diseases are diseases that, although presentin nature, become more prevalent as a result of certainproduction practices. As production systems increase thenumber of animals in the same spaces, preventive healthcare strategies must be developed in parallel in order tominimize the risks of production-related diseases.73

The Recommendationsof the CommissionEnvironment74

Recommendation #1.Improve enforcement of existingfederal, state, and local IFAP facilityregulations to improve the siting ofIFAP facilities and protect the healthof those who live near and downstreamfrom them.a. Enforce all provisions of the Clean Water Act 14 and theClean Air Act 15 that pertain to ifap.b. Provide adequate mandatory federal funding tostates to enable them to hire more trained inspectors,collect data, monitor farms more closely, educateproducers on proper manure handling techniques,write Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans(cnmps), and enforce ifap regulations (e.g., nrcs,epa Section 106 grants, sba loans).c. States should enforce federal and state permits quickly,equitably, and robustly. A lack of funding and politicalwill often inhibits the ability of states to adequatelyenforce existing federal and state ifap (currentlyConcentrated Animal Feeding Operation, or cafo)regulations. Often states must rely on general fundappropriations to fund ifap (cafo) monitoring andrule enforcement. Dedicated mandatory fundingwould improve this situation, and additional fundingfor monitoring and enforcement could be realized ifpermitting fee funds were dedicated to monitoringand enforcement.d. States should implement robust inspection regimesthat are designed to deter ifap facility operators fromignoring pollution rules. Often, no state-sanctionedofficial visits an ifap facility unless there is acomplaint, and then it may be too late to documentor fix the problem. Each state should set a minimuminspection schedule (at least once a year), with specialattention to repeat violators (Kelly, March 20, 2007).e. State environmental protection agencies, ratherthan state agricultural agencies, should be chargedwith regulating ifap waste. This would prevent theconflict of interest that arises when a state agencycharged with promoting agriculture is also regulatingit (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2006).While environmental protection agencies may nothave expertise with food animals, they are generallybetter equipped than state agriculture agencies to dealwith waste disposal since they regulate many othertypes of waste disposal. Unfortunately, several statesare transferring the regulation of ifap facilities fromthe department of environment to their department ofagriculture.f. The epa should develop a standardized approach forregulating air pollution from ifap facilities. ifap airemissions—including pollutants such as particulatematter, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, methane, andvolatile gases—are unregulated at the federal level.g. Clarify the definition of the types of waste handlingsystems and number of animals that constitute aregulated ifap facility (cafo) in order to bring agreater proportion of the waste from ifap facilitiesunder regulation. Under currently proposed epa rules,only 49 to 60% of ifap waste qualifies for federalregulation (epa, 2003).h. The federal government should develop criteria forallowable levels of animal density and appropriatewaste management methods that are compatible withprotecting watershed, airshed, soil, and aquifers byadjusting for relevant hydrologic and geologic factors.States should use these criteria to permit and site ifapoperations.i. Once criteria are established and implemented, epashould monitor ifap’s effects on entire watersheds,not just on a per farm basis, since ifap can have acumulative effect on the health of a watershed.j. Grant permits only to new ifap facilities that complywith local, state, and federal regulations.k. Require existing ifap facilities to comply and shutdown those that cannot or do not.l. The federal and state governments should increasethe number of ifap operations (currently restrictedto epa-defined cafos) to be regulated under federaland state law (nmps, effluent restrictions, NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System (npdes)permits) and provide robust financial and technicalsupport to smaller producers included in the expandedifap (cafo) definition to help them comply withthese regulations. Under the current definition of aconcentrated animal feeding operation (cafo), only5% of animal feeding operations (afos) are cafos, yetthey raise 40% of US livestock. And only about 30%(4,000) of the 5% have federal permits (Copeland2006). If the current final rule (1,000 animal units,or au) were lowered to the original rule proposed in2000, which would regulate cafos between 300 and75

Animals and their waste are concentrated and may well exceedthe capacity of the land to produce feed or absorb the waste.999 au or a 500-animal threshold (epa, 2003), 64%to 72% more waste would be covered under the federalpermitting process.m. Require operations that do not obtain a permitto prove they are not discharging waste into theenvironment. Test wells for groundwater monitoring,and require surface water monitoring for those whowish to opt out of obtaining a permit. This wouldexpand the number of afos subject to regulation.Currently, many operations that meet ifap facility(cafo) size thresholds do not obtain permits or falloutside state and federal regulation because they claimthey do not discharge. Claiming no discharge exemptsifap facilities from federal regulation, althoughthey are often still subject to state laws, which varygreatly from state to state (as noted in the NationalConference of State Legislatures study [ncsl, 2008]).BackgroundToo few ifap operations are monitored, regulated, or eveninspected on a regular basis. It is imperative that all levelsof government thoroughly enforce existing ifap laws forall ifap facilities. Funding should be increased to enablefederal and state authorities to enforce ifap regulations inorder to reduce the number of large operations negativelyimpacting the soil, air, and water.Recommendation #2.Develop and implement a newsystem to deal with farm waste(that will replace the inflexible andbroken system that exists today) toprotect Americans from the adverseenvironmental and human healthhazards of improperly handledIFAP waste.a. Congress and the federal government should worktogether to formulate laws and regulations outliningbaseline waste handling standards for ifap facilities.These standards would address the minimum levelof mandatory ifap facility regulation as well aswhich regulations states must enforce to prevent ifapfacilities from polluting the land, air, and water; statescould choose to implement more stringent regulationsif they considered them necessary. Our diminishingland capacity for producing food animals, combinedwith dwindling freshwater supplies, escalating energycosts, nutrient overloading of soil, and increasedantibiotic resistance, will result in a crisis unless newlaws and regulations go into effect in a timely fashion.This process must begin immediately and be fullyimplemented within 10 years.b. Address site-specific permits for the operation of allifap facilities and include the monitoring of air, water,and soil, total maximum daily loads (tmdls), 16 sitespecificnmps, 17 comprehensive nutrient managementplans (cnmps), 18 inspections, data collection, and selfreportingto the clearinghouse (see Recommendation#3e in this section).c. Require the use of environmentally sound treatmenttechnologies for waste management (withoutspecifying a particular technology that might not beappropriate for all conditions).d. Mandate shared responsibility and liability for thedisposal of ifap waste between integrators andproducers proportional to their control over theoperation (instead of this burden being solely theresponsibility of the producer; [Arteaga, 2001]).e. Include baseline federal zoning guidelines that setout a framework for states. Require a pre-permit /construction environmental impact study. Such arequirement would not prevent states and countiesfrom enacting their own, more comprehensive, zoning77

78laws if necessary (see Recommendation #1 underCompetition and Community Impacts).f. Establish mechanisms for community involvementto provide neighbors of ifap facilities opportunitiesto review and comment on proposed facilities, andallow them to take action in cases where federal orstate regulations have been violated in the absence ofenforcement of those laws by the appropriate authority.Individuals who have had their private propertycontaminated through no fault of their own must haveaccess to the courts to obtain redress.g. Ensure that all types of ifap waste (e.g., dry litter, wetwaste) are covered by regulations (epa, 2003).h. Establish standards that protect people, animals, andthe environment from the effects of ifap waste onand off the operation’s property (Arteaga, 2001; epa,2003; Schiffman, Studwell et al., 2005; Sigurdarsonand Kline 2006; Stolz, Perera et al., 2007).i. Phase out the use of lagoon and spray systems in areasthat cannot sustain their use (e.g., fragile watersheds,floodplains, certain geologic formations, areas prone todisruptive weather patterns).j. Require new and expanding ifap facilities invulnerable areas to use primary, secondary, andtertiary treatment of animal waste (similar to thetreatment associated with human waste) until lagoonand spray systems can be replaced by safe and effectivealternative technologies.k. Require minimal water use in alternative systems toprotect the nation’s dwindling freshwater resources,balanced with the system’s effect on air and soilquality. Liquid manure handling systems should beused only if another system is not feasible or wouldhave greater environmental impact than a liquidsystem. The sustainability of alternative systems inrelation to water resources and carbon use should bea major focus during their development.l. Prohibit the installation of new liquid manurehandling systems and phase out their use on existingoperations as technology allows.m. Require states to implement a robust inspection regimethat combines adequate funding for annual inspectionswith additional risk-based inspections where necessary.It is important that all ifap facilities be inspected ona regular basis to ensure compliance with state andfederal waste management regulations. Additionally,some ifap facilities may need special attention becauseof the type of manure handling system in use, thefacility’s age, its size, or its location. These high-riskoperations should be inspected more often thanlower-risk operations.BackgroundMost animal production facilities in the United States andincreasingly in the world have become highly specializedmanufacturing endeavors and should be viewed as such.The regulatory system for oversight of ifap facilitiesis flawed and inadequate to deal with the level andconcentration of waste produced by current food animalproduction systems, which were not well understood oreven foreseen when the laws were written. A new systemof laws and regulations that applies specifically to modernifap methods is needed.ifap facilities have become more concentrated incertain geographic areas. New regulations must addressthe zoning and siting of ifap facilities, particularly withregard to the topography, demographics, and climate ofthe suggested region. They must also take into account anindividual’s right to property free from pollution causedby neighboring ifap facilities. ifap facility owners andintegrators do not have a right to pollute their neighbors’land. Property owners or tenants must have the right totake legal action or petition the government to do so ontheir behalf if their property is polluted by a neighboringifap facility.Waste from ifap facilities contains both desirable andundesirable byproducts. Desirable byproducts includenutrients that, when applied in appropriate amounts,can enhance production of food crops and biomass toproduce energy. Undesirable components include excesspathogenic bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, viruses,industrial chemicals, heavy metals, and other potentiallyproblematic organic and inorganic compounds. Newifap laws and regulations must mandate development ofsustainable waste handling and treatment systems that canuse the beneficial components and render the less desirablecomponents benign. These new laws should not mandatespecific systems for producers; rather they should setdischarge standards that can be met using a varietyof systems that accommodate the local climate andgeography.Congress should work with the epa, usda, andfda to establish a clear and consistent definition ofwhich ifap facilities should be regulated and to develop

As in large human settlements, improper managementof the highly concentrated feces produced by ifap facilitiescan and does overwhelm natural cleansing processes.a risk-based assessment method for all types of ifapsystems, considering variables such as topography, climate,and hydrology. New and clearly defined regulations willprevent an operation from slipping through the cracks andwill make it clear to states, communities, and citizens howto proceed regarding the impacts of ifap.Recommendation #3.Increase and improve monitoring andresearch of farm waste to hasten thedevelopment of new and innovativesystems to deal with IFAP waste andto better our understanding of whatis happening with IFAP today.a. All ifap facilities should have, at a minimum, aNutrient Management Plan (nmp) for the disposalof manure. 19 An nmp describes appropriate methodsfor the handling and disposal of manure and for itsapplication to fields. The plan should also includerecords of the method and timing of manure disposal.i. State and federal governments should providefunds through state regulatory agencies andthe National Resources Conservation Service(nrcs) to help producers write and implementnmps. 20ii. The epa should set federal minimum standardsfor the extent of nmps and specify whatmonitoring data should be kept.iii. Allow the Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram (eqip) to (1) fund the writing ofnmps to expedite their implementation and(2) provide business plans for alternativesystems to equalize access to governmentfunds for non-ifap and ifap (cafo)-styleproduction. 21b. The federal, state, and local governments shouldbegin collecting data on air emissions, ground andsurface water emissions, soil emissions, and healthoutcomes (e.g., cardiovascular disease, heart disease,injuries, allergies) for people who live near ifapfacilities and for ifap workers. These data shouldbe tabulated and combined with existing data in anational ifap data clearinghouse that will enable theepa and other agencies to keep track of air, water, andland emissions from ifap facilities and evaluate thepublic health implications of these emissions. Theepa and other state and federal agencies should usethese comprehensive data both to support independentresearch and to better regulate ifap facilities.Currently, fda, epa, and other federal agencies eachkeep extensive records for different industries as away to track changes and regulate each industry. Theclearinghouse would consolidate data from around79

80the country, thereby giving producers the chanceto improve their operation by providing access toinformation about better technologies and improvedwaste systems. It would also allow researchers,regulators, and policymakers to evaluate changingenvironmental and public health impacts of agricultureand adjust regulations accordingly. The epa, fda, andusda should take the following actions:i. Add data collected on farm waste handlingsystems to the clearinghouse for use assessingand evaluating the sustainability of animalproduction models and farm waste handlingsystems by region.ii. Link data to their collection location tofacilitate regional comparisons, given differentenvironmental and geological conditions.iii. Implement data protection procedures to ensurethat personal information (e.g., informationthat could be used by identity thieves) canbe accessed only by authorized agencies andpersonnel for official purposes.iv. Include comprehensive usda AgricultureCensus data in the national clearinghouse toprovide a context for the data and thus improvetheir utility.v. Include data on individual violations of stateand federal ifap facility (cafo) regulationsin the public portion of the nationalclearinghouse. Currently, it is difficult todetermine compliance with ifap (cafo)laws because states may or may not keep goodrecords of violations and may make themextremely difficult for the public to access(nasda, 2001).c. Expand our understanding of how to deal withconcentrated ifap waste, as well as the health andenvironmental effects of this waste through morediversely funded and well-coordinated researchto address methods for dealing with ifap waste andits environmental and health effects, as well as tomove the United States towards more sustainablesystems for dealing with farm waste. Nationalstandards for alternative waste systems are needed toguide development of improvements to existing wastehandling systems as well as the developmentof alternative / new waste handling systems.i. Require states to report basic data (generallocation, number of animals, nmp, etc.) onall ifap facilities in the public portion of thenational clearinghouse.ii. Federal and state governments should fundresearch into alternative systems to replaceexisting, insufficient waste handling systems,similar to the recent research done at NorthCarolina State University. They should alsoincrease funding for research on the effects ofifap waste on public health, the environment,and animal welfare.iii. Establish a national clearinghouse for dataon alternative systems. The clearinghousewould be the repository of regionally andtopographically significant data on economicperformance, environmental performance (air,water, and soil), and overall sustainability forpotentially useful alternative waste handlingsystems.iv. Improve and standardize research methodsfor data collection and analysis for theclearinghouse. Standardized methods wouldallow states and the federal governmentto compare regionally relevant data in theclearinghouse and facilitate evaluation of newwaste handling systems.v. Increase funding for research to effectivelyassess and improve the economic performance,energy balance, risk assessment, andenvironmental sustainability of alternativewaste handling systems.vi. Increase funding for research focused oncomprehensive systems to deal with waste,rather than those focused on one process todeal with one aspect of waste (such as using adigester to reduce volume, which does little toreduce the levels of certain toxic components).Dealing with only one component of waste mayhave the unintended consequence of causinggreater harm to the environment.

etween ifap air pollution and asthma.Studies have demonstrated strong and consistent associationsvii.Expand the type and number of entitiesresearching farm waste handling by expandingthe public funding of research at bothland-grant and non-land-grant institutions,and other research entities. In addition,transparency of funding source in agriculturalresearch should be standard.BackgroundA robust monitoring system should be instituted toimprove knowledge about ifap facilities’ current wastemanagement practices as the basis for development ofcleaner and safer methods of food animal production.Recommendation #4.Increase funding for research intoimproving waste handling systems andstandardize measurements to allowbetter comparisons between systems.a. Develop a central repository for information on howto best facilitate rapid adoption of new air and waterpollution reduction technologies that currently exist orare under development across the country. Research todevelop effective means of assistance to pay for them,(eqip should be part of this) should be a componentof this repository. (Examples of technologies include:biofilters, buffer strips, dehydration, injection,digesters, reduced feed wastage, etc.)b. Increase funding for the creation and expansion ofprograms for implementing improved husbandry andtechnology practices on currently existing facilitiesincluding funding conversions to alternative farmingpractices. 22 (Examples of such programs include,but are not limited to: eqip, cooperative extension,nrcs, cost share, loans, grants, and accelerated capitaldepreciation.) Sign-up and application informationfor these types of programs should be included in theclearinghouse so that producers only have to go to oneplace to get information and sign up for a program. Adollar amount cap should be placed on the cost-shareprogram to prevent large-scale operators from usingthe program to externalize their costs. These fundsshould not be used for the physical construction ofnew facilities.c. Target increased assistance and information to smallproducers who are least able to afford implementationof new practices and deal with increased regulation,but still have the potential to pollute. Air emissiontechnologies, such as biofilters, that are used in otherparts of the world should be considered for use inifaps in the United States.BackgroundData from research into alternative systems should belinked to the ifap information clearinghouse to facilitateand expedite access and use. Greater financial andtechnical assistance must be provided to those who wish toimplement alternative systems.81

The Recommendationsof the CommissionAnimal Welfare82

Recommendation #1.The animal agriculture industry shouldimplement federal performance-basedstandards to improve animal health andwell-being.a. The federal government should develop performancebased(not resource-based) animal welfare standards.Animal welfare has improved in recent years based onindustry research and consumer demand; the latterhas led, for example, to the creation of the United EggProducers’ certification program and the McDonald’sanimal welfare council. However, in order to fulfill ourethical responsibility to treat farm animals humanely,federally monitored standards that ensure at least thefollowing minimum standards for animal treatment:Good feeding: Animals should not suffer prolongedhunger or thirst;Good housing: Animals should be comfortableespecially in their lying areas, should not sufferthermal extremes, and should have enough spaceto move around freely;Good health: Animals should not be physicallyinjured and should be free of preventable diseaserelated to production; in the event that surgicalprocedures are performed on animals for thepurposes of health or management, modalitiesshould be used to minimize pain; andAppropriate behavior: Animals should be allowedto perform normal nonharmful social behaviorsand to express species-specific natural behaviorsas much as reasonably possible; animals shouldbe handled well in all situations (handlers shouldpromote good human–animal relationships);negative emotions such as fear, distress, extremefrustration, or boredom should be avoided.b. Implement a government oversight system similar instructure to that used for laboratory animal welfare:Each ifap facility would be certified by an industryfunded,government-chartered, not-for-profit entityaccredited by the federal government to monitorifap. Federal entities would audit ifap facilities forcompliance. Consumers could look for the third-partycertification as proof that the production process meetsfederal farm animal welfare standards.c. Change the system for monitoring and regulatinganimal welfare, recommend improvements in animalwelfare as science, and encourage consumers tocontinue to push animal welfare policy. Improvedanimal husbandry practices and an ethically basedview of animal welfare will solve or ameliorate manyifap animal welfare problems.d. Federal standards for farm animal welfare should bedeveloped immediately based on a fair, ethical, andevidence-based understanding of normal animalbehavior.BackgroundThere is increasing, broad-based interest in commonsense,husbandry-based agriculture that is humane, sustainable,ethical, and a source of pride to its practitioners. Properanimal husbandry 23 practices (e.g., breeding for traitsbesides productivity, growth, and carcass condition) andanimal management are critical to the welfare of farmanimals, as well as to the environment and public health.Evaluating animal welfare without taking into accountanimal health, husbandry practices, and normal behaviorsfor each species is inadequate and inappropriate.83

Consumer concern for humane treatment of food-producinganimals is growing and has prompted change in the industry.Recommendation #2.Implement better animal husbandrypractices to improve public health andanimal well-being.a. Change breeding practices to include attributes andgenetics besides productivity, growth, and carcasscondition (Appleby and Lawrence, 1987); for example,hogs might be bred for docile behavior, fowl for bonestrength and organ capacity, and sows, dairy and beefcattle for “good” mothering. In recent decades, farmanimals have been selectively bred for specific physicaltraits (e.g., fast growth, increased lean muscle mass,increased milk production) that have led to greaterincidence of and susceptibility to transmissible disease,new genetic diseases, a larger number and scope ofmental or behavioral abnormalities 24 , and lameness.b. Improve and expand the teaching of animal husbandrypractices at land-grant universities.c. Federal and state governments should fund (throughtax incentives and directed education funding,including for technical colleges) the training of farmworkers and food industry personnel in sustainable,ethical animal husbandry.d. Diversify the type of farm animal production systemstaught at land-grant schools beyond the status quoifap system. i. Increase funding for the teaching of goodhusbandry and alternative productiontechniques through local extension offices.ii. Work to reduce and eliminate “productiondiseases,” defined as diseases caused byproduction management or nutritionalpractices; liver abscesses in feedlot cattle are anexample of a production disease.BackgroundThe use of better husbandry practices in ifap caneliminate or alleviate many of the animal welfare andpublic health issues that have arisen because of ifapconfinement practices.Recommendation #3.Phase out the most intensive andinhumane production practices withina decade to reduce IFAP risks to publichealth and improve animal well-being;these practices include the following:a. Gestation crates where sows are kept for their entire124-day gestation period. The crates do not allow theanimals to turn around or express natural behaviors,and they restrict the sow’s ability to lie downcomfortably. Alternatives such as open feeding stallsand pens can be used to manage sows.b. Restrictive farrowing crates, in which sows are notable to turn around or exhibit natural behavior. Asan alternative, farrowing systems (e.g., the FreedomFarrowing System, Natural Farrowing Systems)provide protection to the piglets while allowing morefreedom of movement for the sow.c. Any cages that house multiple egg-laying chickens(commonly referred to as “battery cages”) withoutallowing the hens to exhibit normal behavior (e.g.,pecking, scratching, roosting).d. The tethering and / or individual housing of calves forthe production of white veal. This practice is alreadyrare in the United States, so its phaseout can be donequickly.e. Forced feeding of fowl to produce foie gras.f. Tail docking of dairy cattle.g. Forced molting by feed removal for laying hens toextend the laying period (for the most part, this hasbeen phased out by uep standards implemented in2002). 25BackgroundCertain ifap practices cause animal suffering and shouldbe phased out in favor of more humane animal treatment.While all the practices listed above should be eliminated assoon as possible (i.e., within 10 years), current technologyand best practices may limit their short-term phase-out.The phase-out plan should include tax incentives, such asaccelerated depreciation for new and remodeled structures,targeted to regional and family operations.85

Recommendation #4.Improve animal welfare practices andconditions that pose a threat to publichealth and animal well-being; suchpractices and conditions include thefollowing:BackgroundCertain ifap practices need to be improved to providea more humane experience for the animal. Those listedabove should be carefully examined for humaneness andremedied as appropriate, taking into account availabletechnology and current best practices.a. Flooring and housing conditions in feedlots anddairies: cattle kept on concrete, left in excessiveamounts of feces, and / or not provided shade and / ormisting in hot climates.b. Flooring and other housing conditions at swinefacilities: hogs that spend their entire lifetime onconcrete are prone to higher rates of leg injury(Andersen and Boe, 1999; Brennan and Aherne, 1987).c. The method of disposal of unwanted male chicks andof adult fowl in catastrophic situations that require thedestruction of large numbers of birds.d. Hand-catching methods for fowl that result in theanimals’ broken limbs, bruising, and stress.e. Body-altering procedures that cause pain to theanimals, either during or afterward.f. Air quality in ifap buildings: gas buildup can causerespiratory harm to animal health and to ifap workersthrough exposure to gas buildup, toxic dust, and otherirritants.g. Ammonia burns on the feet and hocks of fowl due tocontact with litter.h. Some weaning practices for piglets, beef cattle, andveal calves: the shortening of the weaning period orabrupt weaning to move the animal to market fastercan stress the animals and make them more vulnerableto disease.The federal government should act on the followingrecommendations to improve animal welfare:a. Strengthen and enforce laws dealing with thetransport of livestock by truck. 26 Transport lawsshould also address the overpacking of livestockduring transportation, long-distance transport of farmanimals without adequate care, and transport of veryyoung animals.b. The federal government must include fowl under theHumane Methods of Slaughter Act. 2786

Food animals that are treated well and provided with at leastminimum accommodation of their natural behaviors and physical needsare healthier and safer for human consumption.Recommendation #5.Improve animal welfare research insupport of cost-effective and reliableways to raise food animals whileproviding humane animal care.a. There is a significant amount of animal welfareresearch being done, but the funding often comesfrom special interest groups. Some of this research ispublished and distributed to the agriculture industry,but without acknowledgment of the funding sources.Such lack of disclosure taints mainstream animalwelfare research. To improve the transparency ofanimal research, there needs to be disclosure offunding sources for peer-reviewed published research.Much of today’s agriculture and livestock research, forexample, comes from land-grant colleges with animalscience and agriculture departments that are heavilyendowed by special interests or industry. However,a lot of very good research on humane methodsof stunning and slaughter has been funded by theindustry.b. More diversity in the funding sources for animalwelfare research is also needed. Most animal welfareresearch takes place at land-grant institutions, butother institutions should not be barred from engagingin animal welfare research due to lack of researchfunds. The federal government is in the best positionto provide unbiased animal welfare research; thereforefederal funding for animal welfare research should berevived and increased.c. Focus research on animal-based outcomes relatingto natural behavior and stress, and away fromphysical factors (e.g., growth, weight gain) that donot accurately characterize an animal’s welfare statusexcept in the grossest sense.d. Include ethics as a key component of research intothe humaneness of a particular practice. Scientificoutcomes are critical, but whether a practice is ethicalmust be taken into account.BackgroundWhile there is a large amount of peer-reviewed researchon animal welfare issues being done today, there is roomto improve the quality and focus of that research. Morediversity in the funding sources for animal welfareresearch is also needed. While land-grant institutions arewhere most animal welfare research takes place, otherinstitutions should not be barred from engaging in animalwelfare research due to lack of research funds. Federalfunding for animal welfare research should be revived andincreased. The Federal government is in the best positionto provide unbiased animal welfare research.87

The Recommendationsof the CommissionCommunityImpacts88

social problems for communities”“large-scale industrialized farms create a variety ofRecommendation #1.States, counties, and local governmentsshould implement zoning and sitingguidance governing new IFAPoperations that fairly and effectivelyevaluate the suitability of a site forthese types of facilities.Regulatory agencies should consider the following factorsfor inclusion in their ifap plans, and should adopt suchguidelines regardless of whether an ifap facility currentlyexists in their jurisdiction (Please note that each of thefollowing components should take climate, soil type,prevailing winds, topography, air emissions, operationsize, noise levels, traffic, designated lands, and othercriteria deemed relevant into account.):a. Setback Distances: ifap facilities pose environmentaland public health risks to the areas in which theyare sited. Determining an exact distance from theproduction facility at which risks begin and end isvery difficult, but is important to consider. Distancesfrom schools, residences, surface and groundwatersources, churches, parks, and areas designatedto protect wildlife should all be factored into theproposed location of a food animal productionfacility. Waterways are particularly crucial as anywaste that seeps into water sources may travel greatdistances. Proximity, size, available environmentalmonitoring data, and state regulations for setbacksfor other industries must also be taken into account.Setback distances should be significant enough toalleviate public health and environmental concerns.Determination of appropriate distances should bemade by local officials since state regulators cannottake into account every particular factor—theytypically set a minimum base standard, whichlocalities should follow, and make more stringentwhere necessary.b. Method of Production: Every type of livestock andpoultry production has positive and negative aspects.Zoning officials should consider the economic,environmental, and health effects of, for example,cage-free versus caged facilities, hoop barn versuscrate facilities, operations with outdoor / pasture accessversus permanent indoor confinement, or any othersystems.c. Concentration: Each locality should take into accountthe number of ifap facilities already in existence,particularly per watershed. A surge in the number ofifap facilities in North Carolina led to devastatingenvironmental effects, including serious environmentaljustice issues. Growth there and in other places hasbeen so rapid that potential concerns were not fullyrecognized until they had already created problems.Too many ifap facilities in one area can destroy landand waterways and devastate entire communities.No facility should be sited that cannot coexist withthe land, water, environment, or community in asustainable manner.d. Waste Disposal: One of the most important issuesconcerning ifap facilities is the method of wastehandling. If manure is properly applied to land orinjected using an approved manure managementplan, there should be enough land available to avoidrunoff into surface or groundwater or seepage intogroundwater. Many states have already become awareof the potentially hazardous nature of lagoons andhave, therefore, made the decision to prohibit themfor new facilities. The aforementioned criteria are veryimportant in ensuring waste can be handled properly.Consideration should be given to the fact that animalwaste can be as dangerous, if not more so, thanuntreated human waste and some industrial wastes.Further, localities should operate under the premisethat every ifap facility has the potential for runoff andshould, therefore, prepare accordingly. Plans to preventand deal with this situation are part of the NutrientManagement Plan (nmp), referenced below.e. Agency Capabilities: Local officials should fullyfund the costs associated with the review of zoningapplications.f. Public Input: Because ifap facilities affect the entirecommunity, advance public input should factor intothe decision of whether or not to site a facility. Thisshould not be only in cases where there is controversy.Public input is important to a community’s well-beingas it allows all citizens, regardless of economic or socialstatus, to participate in the decision-making process.Neighbors and other citizens should also have accessto redress when ifap facilities fail to comply withstandards.g. Local Control: Again, localities will have to deal withifap impacts and should therefore be the authority onfacilities sited within community boundaries. Local89

The food animal industry’s shift to a system of captive supplytransactions controlled by production contracts has shiftedeconomic power from farmers to livestock processors.officials and citizens tend to have the best knowledgeabout potential impacts, positive or negative, whereasstate officials are more likely to make decisions basedon generalizations. Further, local officials are moredirectly accountable for decisions than state officials.h. Inspections: The relationship between inspectionsand zoning is twofold. First, zoning officials shouldconduct an on-site inspection before siting anoperation in order to adequately evaluate the criteriamentioned in criteria a through d above. Second,operators should be aware that inspections will takeplace as determined by the state in order to ensure alloperations follow established regulations as well astheir Nutrient Management Plans (nmps; more onthese below).i. Proof of Financial Responsibility: All operations shouldbe bonded for performance and remediation.j. Permit Fees: Fees are suggested in order to help thestate and / or locality fund inspections, enforcement,and the day-to-day function of the local agency. Suchfees can range from around $100 up to any amountthe agency deems appropriate, and should reflect asliding scale based on the size of the operation.BackgroundRegulations governing the siting and zoning of ifapfacilities vary tremendously across the country. In fact,many states, counties, and local governments have littleor no regulations on the books for dealing with newifap facilities. Questions often arise on how to establishzoning and siting regulations, how to enforce them,and how to reconcile the needs of the producers andintegrators with the lifestyle and health of their neighborsand environmental maintenance of the land. Withoutwell-developed and thought-out regulations, governmentsare often unable to regulate the siting of ifap facilities ina way that protects the rights of both the community andthe producers. Compliance with all criteria of a zoningpermit ensures protection of communities, producers, andthe environment.Two specific components the Commission believes shouldbe mandatory in zoning permits are:k. Environmental Impact Statement: The ifap facilityowner and the animal grower must establish thepotential impact of the facility on the land, water,and general environment. The statement shouldinclude best practice information for maintaining soil,water, and air quality, as well as descriptionsof chemical management (e.g., use of fertilizers),manure management, carcass management, stormwater response, and an emergency response plan,at a minimum.l. Nutrient Management Plan (nmp): All ifap facilitiesmust comply with usda-nrcs Standard 590, whichrequires a Nutrient Management Plan. nmps outlineappropriate methods for handling and disposing ofmanure, including land application issues. Producersshould be able to clearly indicate in their nmp thatthe facility will implement all possible best practices tominimize the potential for runoff, and that they willminimize runoff during catastrophic events(e.g., floods). 2891

Recommendation #2.Implement policies to allow for acompetitive marketplace in animalagriculture to reduce the environmentaland public health impacts of IFAP.a. The Commission recommends the vigorousenforcement of current federal antitrust laws to restorecompetition in the farm animal market. If enforcingexisting antitrust laws are not effective in restoringcompetition, further legislative remedies shouldbe considered, such as more transparency in pricereporting and limiting the ability of integrators tocontrol the supply of animals for slaughter.The consolidation in the food animal industry, aswell as the continued growth of completely integratedoperations (where the processor owns the farm, theanimals, and the processing plant), has led to a situationwhere independent producers, whether contractingor selling on the open market, are beholden to bigcorporations. Growers often take out large loans to payfor land and equipment in anticipation of a contract froma big corporate integrator. Because the contracts are oftenpresented in “take-it-or-leave-it” terms, the producer mayend up with a large loan and no way to pay it off if theintegrator revokes the contract.BackgroundThe current food animal production system is highlyconcentrated and exhibits conditions that suggestmonopsony, in which there are very few buyers for a largenumber of suppliers. Under monopsonistic conditions,fewer goods are sold, prices are higher in output marketsand lower for sellers of inputs, and wealth is transferredfrom the party without market power to the party withmarket power. For example, the top four pork-producingcompanies in the United States control 60% of the porkmarket, and the top four beef packers control over 80% ofthe beef market. Farmers have little choice but to contractwith those few producers if they are to sell the foodanimals they grow.Vigorous market competition is of vital importance toconsumers: they benefit most from an open, competitive,and fair market where the values of democracy,freedom, transparency, and efficiency are in balance.Rural communities and consumers suffer from a loss ofcompetitive markets as wealth is transferred from theparty without market power to the party with marketpower. These situations require robust remedy.93

The Recommendationsof the CommissionAdditionalResearch Needs94

Recommendation:Increase funding for, expand, andreform animal agriculture research.BackgroundAs the Commission traveled across the country and talkedto experts in animal agriculture, we heard many recurringthemes, but some of the loudest came from the researchcommunity. In particular, Commission members heardthree things:• there are not enough research dollars from publicfunding;• the percentage of research funded by industry isgrowing; and• if enough money is put into research, science can solvemany of the problems of ifap.Industry representatives and academics agreed: morepublic funding is needed to generate unbiased researchinto ifap issues.Our understanding of how ifap affects humans,animals, and society must be expanded. The Commissionhas concluded that a more diversely funded, wellcoordinatedand transparent national research programis needed to address the many problems and challengesfacing ifap.95

References96(1965). Command Paper 2836. Report of the TechnicalCommittee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animal Keptunder Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems.Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: London.(1977). The Family Farm in California: Report ofthe Small Farm Viability Project. Agriculture DoFa,Development DoHaC (eds). Sacramento, California:Employment Development Department, Governor’sOffice of Planning and Research, pp 229-30.(1994). Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act.In: Code of Federal Regulations.(2007 a). Preservation of Antibiotics for MedicalTreatment Act.(2007 b). Veterinary Public Health Workforce ExpansionAct of 2007.Abeles-Allison M, Connor L (1990). An Analysis ofLocal Benefits and Costs of Michigan Hog OperationsExperiencing Environmental Conflicts. Department ofAgricultural Economics, Michigan State University,East Lansing.ahi (2002). Survey Shows Decline in Antibiotics Use inAnimals. Animal Health Institute.Andersen IL, Boe KE (1999). Straw bedding or concretefloor for loose-housed pregnant sows: Consequencesfor aggression, production and physical health. ActaAgriculturae Scandinavica Section A—Animal Science49: 190-195.Anderson AD, McClellan J, Rossiter S, Angulo FJ (2003).Public Health Consequences of Use of AntimicrobialAgents in Agriculture. In: The Resistance Phenomenon inMicrobes and Infectious Disease Vectors: Implications forHuman Health and Strategies for Containment Workshop.Knobler SL, Lemon SM, Najafi M, Burroughs T (eds).The National Academies Press: Washington, DC,pp 231-243.Appleby MC, Lawrence AB (1987). Food restriction asa cause of stereotypic behavior in tethered gilts. AnimalProduction 45: 103-110.Arbuckle KE, Downing JA (2001). The influence ofwatershed land use on lake N:P in a predominantlyagricultural landscape. lo 46: 970-975.Arbuckle TE, Sherman GJ, Corey PN, Walters D,Lo B (1988). Water nitrates and cns birth defects: apopulation-based case-control study. Arch Environ Health43: 162-7.Arteaga ST (2001). National Pollutant DischargeElimination System Compliance Challenges. In: AmericanSociety of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting:St. Joseph, Michigan.Bakr WM, Fawzi M, Hashish MH (2004). Detectionof coagulase positive staphylococci in <strong>meat</strong> products soldin Alexandria using two different media. J Egypt PublicHealth Assoc 79: 31-42.Batt AL, Snow DD, Aga DS (2006). Occurrence ofsulfonamide antimicrobials in private water wells inWashington County, Idaho, usa. Chemosphere 64:1963-71.Beeman P (2007). Speakers Say Biofuel Boom PutsPressure on Water. In: The Des Moines Register: DesMoines, Iowa.Brennan JJ, Aherne FX (1987). Effect of Floor Type on theSeverity of Foot Lesions and Osteochondrosis in Swine.Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 517-523.Brown LR (2006). Plan B 2.0. W.W. Norton andCompany: New York.Burkholder J, Libra B, Weyer P, Heathcote S, Kolpin D,Thorne PS, Wichman M (2007). Impacts of waste fromconcentrated animal feeding operations on water quality.Environ Health Perspect 115: 308-12.cdc (2006). Update on Multi-State Outbreak ofE. coli O157:H7 Infections from Fresh Spinach,October 6, 2006.cdc / fda / nih (1999). A Public Health Action Plan toCombat Antimicrobial Resistance. Interagency Task Forceon Antimicrobial Resistance.Centner TJ (2006). Governmental oversight of dischargesfrom concentrated animal feeding operations. EnvironManage 37: 745-52.Cole D, Todd L, Wing S (2000). Concentrated swinefeeding operations and public health: a review ofoccupational and community health effects. EnvironHealth Perspect 108: 685-99.Cook M (1998). Reducing Water Pollution from AnimalFeeding Operations. In: Testimony before the Subcommitteeon Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research of theCommittee on Agriculture. Representatives usho (ed). epa:http: / / www.epa.gov /ocirpage / hearings / testimony / 105 _1997 _1998 / 051398.htm.Copeland C (2006). Animal Waste and Water Quality:epa Regulation of Concentrated Animal FeedingOperations (cafos). Service CR (ed). United StatesCongress: Washington, DC, pp crs-1-crs-23.

Cosgrove SE, Qi Y, Kaye KS, Harbarth S, Karchmer AW,Carmeli Y (2005). The impact of methicillin resistancein Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia on patient outcomes:mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 26: 166-74.Daly HE (1999). Ecological Economics and the Ecology ofEconomics. Edward Elgar: Northampton, Massachusetts.Delgado CL (2003). Rising consumption of <strong>meat</strong> andmilk in developing countries has created a new foodrevolution. Journal of Nutrition 133: 3907S-3910S.Delgado CL, Rosegrant MW, Steinfeld H, Ehui S,Courbois C (1999). The Growing Place of LivestockProducts in World Food in the Twenty-First Century. In:mtid discussion papers. (ifpri) (ed).DeLind L, Durrenberger PE, Flora CB, Flora J, HeffernanWD, Padgitt S (1995). Social Consequences of IntensiveSwine Production: Some Effects of Community Conflict.In: Understanding the Impacts of Large-Scale SwineProduction: An Interdisciplinary Scientific Workshop:Des Moines, Iowa.Diamond J (1999). Guns, Germs, and Steel. W.W. Nortonand Company: New York.Diamond J (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Failor Succeed. Viking Press: New York.Do Pico G (1986). Workgroup report on diseases.Am J Ind Med 10: 261-266.doe, fra (2001). British Cattle Movement Service.Donham K, Carsons T, Adrian B (1982a).Carboxyhemoglobin values in swine relative to carbonmonoxide exposure: Guidelines to monitor for animal andhuman health hazards in swine buildings. Am J Vet Res5: 813-816.Donham K, Cumro D, Reynolds S, Merchant J (2000).Dose-response relationships between occupational aerosolexposures and cross-shift declines of lung function inpoultry workers: Recommendations for exposure limits.J Occup Environ Med 42: 260-269.Donham K, Gustafson K (1982). Human occupationalhazards from swine confinement. Annals of the AmericanConference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists2: 137-142.Donham K, Haglind P, Peterson Y, Rylander R, Belin L(1989). Environmental and health studies of workers inSwedish swine buildings. Br J Ind Med 46: 31-37.Donham K, Merchant J, Lassise D, Popendorf W,Burmeister L (1990). Preventing respiratory disease inswine confinement workers: Intervention through appliedepidemiology, education, and consultation. Am J Ind Med18: 241-262.Donham K, Popendorf W (1985). Ambient levels ofselected gases inside swine confinement buildings.American Industrial Hygienic Association Journal46: 658-661.Donham K, Reynolds S, Whitten P, Merchant J,Burmeister L, Popendorf W (1995). Respiratorydysfunction in swine production facility workers: Doseresponserelationships of environmental exposures andpulmonary function. Am J Ind Med 27: 405-418.Donham K, Yeggy J, Dague R (1988). Health implicationsfor workers and animals in swine buildings. BiologicalWastes: 161-173.Donham KJ, Wing S, Osterberg D, Flora JL, Hodne C,Thu KM, Thorne PS (2007). Community health andsocioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animalfeeding operations. Environ Health Perspect 115: 317-20.Dozier 111 WA, Lacy MP, Vest LR (2001). BroilerProduction and Management. University of Georgia,College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,Department of Poultry Science, Cooperative ExtensionService: Athens, Georgia, pp 8.Durrenberger PE, Thu KM (1996). The Expansion ofLarge Scale Hog Farming in Iowa: The Applicabilityof Goldschmidt’s Findings Fifty Years Later. HumanOrganization 55: 411-15.epa (2006). Consumer Factsheet on: Nitrates / Nitrites.epa (2007 a). Inventory of US Greenhouse GasEmissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. National Center forEnvironmental Publications, pp 393.epa (2007 b). US epa 2008 Compliance andEnforcement: Clean Water Act. pp 1-3.epa (2003). npdes Permit Regulation and EffluentLimitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal FeedingOperations. Office of Water.fawc (2007). Five Freedoms. fawc (ed).fda-cvm (2003). Guidance for Industry #152.Donham K, Knapp L, Monson R, Gustafson K (1982b).Acute toxic exposure to gases from liquid manure.J Occup Med 24: 142-145.97

Frazão E, Meade B, Regmi A (2008). Converging Patternsin Global Food Consumption and Food Delivery Systems.Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, NaturalResources, and Rural America 6: 22-29.Frenzen PD, Drake A, Angulo FJ (2005). Economic costof illness due to Escherichia coli O157 infections in theUnited States. Journal of Food Protection 68: 2623-2630.Gibbs SG, Green CF, Tarwater PM, Scarpino PV (2004).Airborne antibiotic resistant and nonresistant bacteria andfungi recovered from two swine herd confined animalfeeding operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 1: 699-706.Gilchrist MJ, Greko C, Wallinga DB, Beran GW,Riley DG, Thorne PS (2007). The potential role ofconcentrated animal feeding operations in infectiousdisease epidemics and antibiotic resistance. Environ HealthPerspect 115: 313-6.Gilles JL, Dalecki M (1988). Rural Well-Being andAgricultural Change in Two Farming Regions. RuralSociology 53: 40-55.Goldschmidt W (1946). Small Business and theCommunity: A Study in Central Valley of Californiaon Effects of Scale of Farm Operations. In: Report of theSpecial Committee to Study Problems of American SmallBusiness. 79th Congress, 2nd Session: Washington, DC.Goldschmidt W (1978). As You Sow: Three Studies in theSocial Consequences of Agribusiness. Allanheld, Osmun andCompany: Montclair, New Jersey.Gollehon NR, Caswell M., Ribaudo M., KelloggR., Lander C., Letson D (2001). Confined AnimalProduction and Manure Nutrients. Service uer (ed).Graham JP, Boland JJ, Silbergeld E (2007). GrowthPromoting Antibiotics in Food Animal Production:An Economic Analysis. Public Health Rep 122: 79-87.Gray GC, Trampel DW, Roth JA (2007). Pandemicinfluenza planning: shouldn’t swine and poultry workersbe included? Vaccine 25: 4376-81.Harris CK, Gilbert J (1982). Large-Scale Farming, RuralIncome, and Goldschmidt’s Agrarian Thesis. RuralSociology 47: 449-58.Harrison PF, Lederberg J (ed) (1998). AntimicrobialResistance: Issues and Options. National Academy Press:Washington, DC.Heinberg R (2004). Power Down. New SocietyPublishers: Gabriola Island, bc, Canada.Holm B, Bakken M, Klemetsdal G, Vangen O (2004).Genetic correlations between reproduction andproduction traits in swine. Journal of Animal Science 82:3458-3464.Horrigan L, Lawrence RS, Walker P (2002). Howsustainable agriculture can address the environmental andhuman health harms of industrial agriculture. EnvironHealth Perspect 110: 445-56.hsus (2006 a). The Welfare of Animals in the BroilerChicken Industry. In: An hsus Report. hsus (ed).hsus: Washington, DC pp 1-7.hsus (2006 b). usda Reverses Decades-Old Policyon Farm Animal Transport. In: Press Release. hsus:Washington, DC.Huijsdens XW, van Dijke BJ, Spalburg E, van Santen-Verheuvel MG, Heck ME, Pluister GN, Voss A, WannetWJ, de Neeling AJ (2006). Community-acquired mrsaand pig-farming. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 5: 26.Idris U, Lu J, Maier M, Sanchez S, Hofacre CL, HarmonBG, Maurer JJ, Lee MD (2006). Dissemination offluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter spp. within anintegrated commercial poultry production system. ApplEnviron Microbiol 72: 3441-7.iom (1998). Antimicrobial Resistance: Issues andOptions. National Academy Press: Washington.Jensen J (2006). Carbon Credits: New Opportunities forUS Livestock Industry. In: Ag STAR Conference. US epa:Madison, Wisconsin.Kelly N (March 20, 2007). Senate panel cool to feed-farmcurbs. In: The Journal Gazette: Ft. Wayne.Khanna T, Friendship R, Dewey C, Weese JS (2007).Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization inpigs and pig farmers. Vet Microbiol: Article In Press.Kilburn KH (1997). Exposure to reduced sulfur gasesimpairs neurobehavioral function. South Med J 90:997-1006.Kirschenmann F (2007). Potential for a New Generationof Biodiversity in Agroecosystems of the Future.Agronomy Journal 99: 375.Kitai S, Shimizu A, Kawano J, Sato E, Nakano C,Kitagawa H, Fujio K, Matsumura K, Yasuda R,Inamoto T (2005). Prevalence and characterization ofStaphylococcus aureus and enterotoxigenic Staphylococcusaureus in retail raw chicken <strong>meat</strong> throughout Japan.J Vet Med Sci 67: 269-74.98

Kleiner AM, Rikoon JS, Seipel M (2000). Pigs,participation, and the democratic process: The impactsof proximity to large-scale swine operations on elementsof social capital in Northern Missouri communities. In:Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society: Washington, DC.Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, Petit S, GershmanK, Ray S, Harrison LH, Lynfield R, Dumyati G, TownesJM, Craig AS, Zell ER, Fosheim GE, McDougal LK,Carey RB, Fridkin SK (2007). Invasive methicillinresistantStaphylococcus aureus infections in the UnitedStates. Jama 298: 1763-71.Knol EF, Bergsma R, van Arendunk JAM, van der LendeT (2001). Genetic correlations between piglet survival,birth weight and performance traits. In: Genetic aspectsof pig survival. Knol EF (ed). phd Thesis, WageningenUniversity: Wageningen, pp 57-74.Kostraba JN, Gay EC, Rewers M, Hamman RF (1992).Nitrate levels in community drinking waters and risk ofiddm. An ecological analysis. Diabetes Care 15: 1505-8.Krapac IG, Koike S., Meyer MT, Snow DD, Chou SFJ,Mackie RI, Roy WR, and Chee-Sanford, JC (2004).Long term monitoring of the occurrence of antibioticsresidues and antibiotic resistance genes in groundwaternear swing confinement facilities. In: 4th InternationalConference on Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine DistruptingChemicals in Water. National Ground Water Association:Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp 158-174.Lay Jr. DC, Haussmann MF, Daniels MJ (2000). HoopHousing for Feeder Pigs Offers a Welfare-FriendlyEnvironment Compared to Nonbedded ConfinementSystem. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3: 33-48.Leopold A (1999). The Outlook for Farm Wildlife. In:Aldo Leopold: For the Health of the Land. Callicott JB,Freyfogle ET (eds). Island Press: Washington, DC pp 218.Lewis WJ, van Lenteren JC, Phatak SC, Tumlinson JH,3rd (1997). A total system approach to sustainable pestmanagement. Proc Natl Acad Sci usa 94: 12243-8.Lund MS, Puonti M, Rydhmer L, Jensen J (2002).Relationship between litter size and perinatal and preweaningsurvival in pigs. Animal Science 74: 217-222.MacCannell D (1988). Industrial Agriculture and RuralCommunity Degradation. In: Agriculture and CommunityChange in the US: The Congressional Research Reports.Swanson LE (ed). Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado.Markowitz L, Hynes N, de la Cruz P, Campos E,Barbaree J, Plikaytis B, Mosier D, Kaufmann A (1985).Tick-borne Tularemia: An outbreak of Lymphadenopathyin children. jama Nov 22 / 29: 2922-2925.Marmion B, Ormsbee R, Kyrkow M, Wright J, WorswickD, Izzo A, Esterman A, Feery B, Shapiro R (1990).Vaccine prophylaxis of abattoir-associated Q fever: Eightyears’ experience in Australian abattoirs. Epidemiol Infect:275-287.Martin A (2004). US venture hints at Brazil’s hog farmpotential. In: Chicago Tribune: Chicago.McMichael AJ (1993). Planetary Overload: GlobalEnvironmental Changes and the Health of the HumanSpecies. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.McMillan M, Schulman MD (2003). Hogs and Citizens:A Report from the North Carolina Front. Ohio UniversityPress: Athens, Ohio.Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS,Shapiro C, Griffin PM, Tauxe RV (1999). Food-relatedillness and death in the United States. Emerging InfectiousDiseases 5: 607-625.Meatnews.com (2005). Europe Bans Antibiotic GrowthPromoters.Mellon MG, Benbrook C, Benbrook KL, Union ofConcerned Scientists. (2001). Hogging it: estimates ofantimicrobial abuse in livestock. Union of ConcernedScientists: Cambridge, Massachusetts.Mench JA, James H, Pajor EA, Thompson PB (2008).The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal FeedingOperations. In: Report to the Pew Commission on IndustrialFarm Animal Production. Pew Commission on IndustrialFarm Animal Production: Washington, DC.Merchant JA, Naleway AL, Svendsen ER, Kelly KM,Burmeister LF, Stromquist AM, Taylor CD, Thorne PS,Reynolds SJ, Sanderson WT, Chrischilles EA (2005).Asthma and farm exposures in a cohort of rural Iowachildren. Environ Health Perspect 113: 350-6.Mirabelli MC, Wing S, Marshall SW, Wilcosky TC(2006a). Race, poverty, and potential exposure of middleschoolstudents to air emissions from confined swinefeeding operations. Environ Health Perspect 114: 591-6.Mirabelli MC, Wing S, Marshall SW, Wilcosky TC(2006b). Asthma symptoms among adolescents whoattend public schools that are located near confined swinefeeding operations. Pediatrics 118: e66-75.Mississippi State University Extension Service (1997).Broiler Production in Mississippi.Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, Fosheim GE,McDougal LK, Carey RB, Talan DA (2006). MethicillinresistantS. aureus infections among patients in theemergency department. N Engl J Med 355: 666-74.99

100Myers KP, Olsen CW, Setterquist SF, Capuano AW,Donham KJ, Thacker EL, Merchant JA, Gray GC(2006). Are swine workers in the United States atincreased risk of infection with zoonotic influenza virus?Clin Infect Dis 42: 14-20.Myers KP, Setterquist SF, Capuano AW, Gray GC (2007).Infection due to 3 avian influenza subtypes in UnitedStates veterinarians. Clin Infect Dis 45: 4-9.nas (1975). Understanding Climate Change: Report ofthe Panel on Climate Variations. National Academy ofSciences: Washington, DC.nas (1999). The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefitsand Risks. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.nasda (2001). Comments on Pollutant DischargeRegulation / Guidelines & Standards for Animal FeedingOperations. Graves L (ed). National Association of StateDepartments of Agriculture.ncsl (2008). Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations:A Survey of State Policies. In: A Report to the PewCommission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.pcifap (ed). National Conference of State Legislatures:Washington, DC.Neirenberg D (2003). Factory farming in the developingworld: in some critical respects, this is not progress at all.In: World Watch 16: pp 10-19.Nolan BT, Hitt KJ (2006). Vulnerability of shallowgroundwater and drinking-water wells to nitrate in theUnited States. Environ Sci Technol 40: 7834-40.npb (2005). Take Care: A Producer’s Guide to UsingAntibiotics Responsibly. Des Moines, Iowa.Osbern L, Crapo R (1981). Dung Lung: A report of toxicexposure to liquid manure. Ann Intern Med 95: 312-314.Peak N, Knapp CW, Yang RK, Hanfelt MM, SmithMS, Aga DS, Graham DW (2007). Abundance of sixtetracycline resistance genes in wastewater lagoons at cattlefeedlots with different antibiotic use strategies. EnvironMicrobiol 9: 143-51.Peters JA, Blackwood TR (1977). Source Assessment: BeefCattle Feedlots. epa-600 / 2-77-107. US EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina.Pimentel D, Houser J, Preiss E, White O, Fang H,Mesnick L, Barsky T, Tariche S, Schreck J, Alpert S(1997). Water Resources: Agriculture, the Environment,and Society. BioScience 47: 97-106.Rabalais NN, Wiseman WJ, Turner RE, Sen Gupta BK,Dortch Q (1996). Nutrient changes in the MississippiRiver and system responses on the adjacent continentalshelf. Estuaries 19: 386-407.Radon K, Schulze A, Ehrenstein V, van Strien RT,Praml G, Nowak D (2007). Environmental exposure toconfined animal feeding operations and respiratory healthof neighboring residents. Epidemiology 18: 300-8.Rao PV, Bhattacharya R, Pant SC, Bhaskar AS (1995).Toxicity evaluation of in vitro cultures of freshwatercyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa: I. Hepatic andhistopathological effects in rats. Biomed Environ Sci 8:254-64.Reganold JP, Elliott LF, Unger YL (1987). Long-termEffects of Organic and Conventional Farming on SoilErosion. Nature 330: 370-2.Reganold JP, Glover JD, Andrews PK, Hinman HR(2001). Sustainability of three apple production systems.Nature 410: 926-30.Reynolds S, Donham K, Whitten P, Merchant J,Burmeister L, Popendorf W (1996). Longitudinalevaluation of dose-response relationships forenvironmental exposures and pulmonary function inswine production workers. Am J Ind Med 29.Roberts P (2004). The End of Oil. Houghton MifflinCompany: Boston.Russelle MP, Morey RV, Baker JM, Porter PM, Jung HJ(2007). Comment on “Carbon-negative biofuels fromlow-input high-diversity grassland biomass.” Science 316:1567; author reply: 1567.Rylander R (1987). Role of endotoxins in the pathogenesisof respiratory disorders. Eur J Respir Dis Suppl 154:136-144.Saenz RA, Hethcote HW, Gray GC (2006). Confinedanimal feeding operations as amplifiers of influenza.Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 6: 338-46.Schiffman SS, Miller EA, Suggs MS, Graham BG (1995).The effect of environmental odors emanating fromcommercial swine operations on the mood of nearbyresidents. Brain Res Bull 37: 369-75.Schiffman SS, Studwell CE, Landerman LR, BermanK, Sundy JS (2005). Symptomatic effects of exposure todiluted air sampled from a swine confinement atmosphereon healthy human subjects. Environ Health Perspect 113:567-76.Schraft H, Kleinlein N, Untermann F (1992).Contamination of pig hindquarters with Staphylococcusaureus. Int J Food Microbiol 15: 191-4.

Schroeder CM, Naugle AL, Schlosser WD, HogueAT, Angulo FJ, Rose JS, Ebel ED, Disney WT, HoltKG, Goldman DP (2005). Estimate of illnesses fromSalmonella enteritidis in eggs, United States, 2000.Emerg Infect Dis 11: 113-5.Seffner W (1995). Natural water contents and endemicgoiter—a review. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 196: 381-98.Shi Q, Cui J, Zhang J, Kong FX, Hua ZC, Shen PP(2004). Expression modulation of multiple cytokines invivo by cyanobacteria blooms extract from Taihu Lake,China. Toxicon 44: 871-9.Sigurdarson ST, Kline JN (2006). School proximity toconcentrated animal feeding operations and prevalence ofasthma in students. Chest 129: 1486-91.Smith DL, Harris AD, Johnson JA, Silbergeld EK,Morris JG, Jr. (2002). Animal antibiotic use has an earlybut important impact on the emergence of antibioticresistance in human commensal bacteria. Proc Natl AcadSci usa 99: 6434-9.Smith JL, Drum DJ, Dai Y, Kim JM, Sanchez S, MaurerJJ, Hofacre CL, Lee MD (2007). Impact of AntimicrobialUsage on Antimicrobial Resistance in CommensalEscherichia coli Strains Colonizing Broiler Chickens.Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 1404-14.Song WL, Huang M, Rumbeiha W, Li H (2007).Determination of amprolium, carbadox, monensin, andtylosin in surface water by liquid chromatography / tandemmass spectrometry. Rapid Communications in MassSpectrometry 21: 1944-1950.Soule JD, Piper D (1992). Farming in Nature’s Image:An Ecological Approach to Agriculture. Island Press:Washington, DC.Spellberg B, Guidos R, Gilbert D, Bradley J, BoucherHW, Scheld WM, Bartlett JG, Edwards Jr. J, AmericaIDSo (2008). The Epidemic of Antibiotic-ResistantInfections: A Call to Action for the Medical Communityfrom the Infectious Disease Society of America.Clin Infect Dis 46.Starmer E, Wise TA (2007a). Feeding at the Trough:Industrial Livestock Firms Saved $35 billion from LowFeed Prices. In: Policy Brief 07-03. Institute gdae, (ed).Tufts University: Medford, Massachusetts, pp 4.Starmer E, Wise TA (2007b). Living High on theHog: Factory Farms, Federal Policy, and the StructuralTransformation of Swine Production. In: Working Paper07-04. Institute gdae (ed). Tufts University: Medford,Massachusetts, pp 30.Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, RosalesM, de Haan C (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.Stock R, Mader T (1985). Feed additives for beef cattle.In: NebGuide. University of Nebraska: Lincoln, Nebraska.Stokstad ELR, Jukes TH (1958-1959). Studies of thegrowth-promoting effect of antibiotics in chicks on apurified diet. Antibiotics Annual: 998-1002.Stolz JF, Perera E, Kilonzo B, Kail B, Crable B, FisherE, Ranganathan M, Wormer L, Basu P (2007).Biotransformation of 3-nitro-4-hydroxybenzene arsonicacid (roxarsone) and release of inorganic arsenic byClostridium species. Environ Sci Technol 41: 818-23.Summer W (1971). Odor pollution of air—causeand control. The Chemical Rubber Company Press:Cleveland, Ohio, pp 310.Suzuki S (1994). Pathogenicity of Salmonella enteritidis inpoultry. Int J Food Microbiol 21: 89-105.Tajtakova M, Semanova Z, Tomkova Z, Szokeova E,Majoros J, Radikova Z, Sebokova E, Klimes I, LangerP (2006). Increased thyroid volume and frequency ofthyroid disorders signs in schoolchildren from nitratepolluted area. Chemosphere 62: 559-64.Tao B (2003). A stitch in time: Addressing theenvironmental, health, and animal welfare effectsof China’s expanding <strong>meat</strong> industry. In: GeorgetownInternational Law Review.Tetreau ED (1940). Social Organization in Arizona’sIrrigated Areas. Rural Sociology 5: 192-205.Teuber M (2001). Veterinary use and antibiotic resistance.Curr Opin Microbiol 4: 493-9.Thu KM (2002). Public Health Concerns for Neighborsof Large-Scale Swine Production Operations. Journal ofAgricultural Safety and Health 8: 175-84.Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, PolaskyS (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensiveproduction practices. Nature 418: 671-677.Trewavas A (2002). Malthus foiled again and again.Nature 418: 668-670.usda (2005). National Animal Identification System:Draft Strategic Plan. usda (ed).usda (2006). National Animal Identification System(nais): Strategies for the Implementation of nais.usda (ed).101

usda, aphis (2006). National Animal IdentificationSystem (nais).usda-ers (2001). Agricultural and ResourceManagement Survey.usda-ers (2008). Data Sets: 2005 County-Level PovertyRates. Gibbs R (ed). usda Economic Research Service.usgs (2006). Pharmaceuticals and Other EmergingContaminants in the Environment—Transport, Fate,and Effects.van Loo H, Diederen BMW, Savelkoul PHM, et al.,(2007). Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus inMeat Products, the Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis 13:1753-1755.Voss A, Loeffen F, Bakker J, Klaassen C, Wulf M (2005).Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farming.Emerg Infect Dis 11: 1965-6.Walker P, Rhubart-Berg P, McKenzie S, Kelling K,Lawrence RS (2005). Public health implications of <strong>meat</strong>production and consumption. Public Health Nutr 8:348-56.Witte W, Strommenger B, Stanek C, Cuny C (2007).Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus st398 inhumans and animals, Central Europe. Emerg Infect Dis13: 255-8.Woolhouse ME, Gowtage-Sequeria S (2005). Host rangeand emerging and reemerging pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis11: 1842-7.Woolhouse ME, Taylor LH, Haydon DT (2001).Population biology of multihost pathogens. Science 292:1109-12.Wright W, Flora CB, Kremer KS, Goudy W, HinrichsC, Lasley P, Maney A, Kroma M, Brown H, Pigg K,Durgan B, Coleman J, Elias Morse D (2001). Technicalwork paper on social and community impacts. GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture:Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.Zetola N, Francis JS, Nuermberger EL, Bishai WR(2005). Community-acquired meticillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus: an emerging threat. Lancet Infect Dis5: 275-86.Washington State Department of Ecology (2006).Agency-Wide Notices, Orders & Penalties 1985–2005.Drop in inspections when authority given to Departmentof Agriculture in 2003, as compared with previous yearswhen Department of Ecology had dairy inspectionauthority.Webb J, Archer JR (1994). Pollution of soils andwatercourses by wastes from livestock production systems.In: Pollution in Livestock Production Systems. Dewi IA,Axford RFE, Marai IFM, Omed HM (eds). cabiPublishing: Oxfordshire, England, pp 189-204.Western Organization of Resource Councils(May 2006). National Animal Identification System:The Unanswered Questions.who (1992). Basic documents. 39th ed. who: Geneva.who (2000). Report on Infectious Diseases.who (2002). Impacts of antimicrobial growth promotertermination in Denmark. In: International InvitationalSymposium: Beyond Antimicrobial Growth Promotersin Food Animal Production. Panel wir (ed). whoDepartment of Communicable Diseases, Prevention andEradication: Foulum, Denmark.Wing S, Wolf S (2000). Intensive livestock operations,health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolinaresidents. Environ Health Perspect 108: 233-8.102

103

Endnotes1 Vertical integration describes a style of managementthat seeks to control many components of theproduction chain. Usually each component of thehierarchy produces a different product or service, andthe products combine to satisfy a common need. Oneof the earliest, largest and most famous examples ofvertical integration was the Carnegie Steel company.The company controlled not only the mills where thesteel was manufactured but also the mines where theiron ore was extracted, the coal mines that suppliedthe coal, the ships that transported the iron ore, therailroads that transported the coal to the factory, andthe coke ovens where the coal was coked.2 From: epa Administered Permit Programs: TheNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,40 cfr § 122.23 (2001).3Animal pharmaceutical industry trade association.4 Group representing packing and food processingcompanies.5Animal Welfare Act. 7 usc § 2131. (1966).6 Daly, Robert Costanza, and others have formed aprofessional Ecological Economics movement.7 http: / / news.bbc.co.uk / hi / english / static / in _depth / world / 2000 / world _water_crisis / default.stm8 Review and Outlook, 2007. “Ethanol’s WaterShortage.” Wall Street Journal. Oct 17. A18.9 For extensive peer-reviewed research on hoop barnperformance go to www.leopold.iastate.edu, clickon Ecology Initiative, and type “hoop barns” in thesearch box.10 The pcifap defines nontherapeutic as any use ofantimicrobials in food animals in the absence of clinicaldisease or known (documented) disease exposure;i.e., any use of the drug as a food or water additive forgrowth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, diseaseprevention in the absence of documented exposure orany other “routine” use as nontherapeutic.11 Fluoroquinolones are approved in animals only fortherapeutic use (not for nontherapeutic use) and thusare not covered under pamta.12This definition is adapted from pamta.13 The usda aphis has begun implementing an animaltracking system, the National Animal IdentificationSystem (nais; http: / / animalid.aphis.usda.gov / nais / index.shtml). Announced in May 2005,the nais tracks both premises and 27 species of foodanimals (including cattle, goats, sheep, swine, poultry,deer, and elk). The data are linked to several databasesrun by private technology companies, while usdashops for a technology company with data warehousingexpertise to run the full national database. The UnitedKingdom uses a similar database system for its CattleTracing System (cts; http: / / www.bcms.gov.uk / ),which facilitates tracking and is accessible online tousers and administrators. See pcifap Recommendation#6 in this section for more information.14 Clean Water Act. Vol 33 usc § 1251 et seq. 33 ed.; 1977.15 usepa. Animal Feeding Operations Air QualityCompliance Agreement Fact Sheet; 2006.16 Total maximum daily load: The total amount of aspecific compound that can be emitted in a day.17 Nutrient management plan: Specifies how wasteshould be handled on a specific farm taking intoaccount local conditions and conforming to usdanrcsStandard 590. ftp: / / ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov / ia / technical / N590(12-2006).pdf18 Comprehensive nutrient management plan: A cnmpincorporates practices to utilize animal manure andorganic byproducts as a beneficial resource. A cnmpaddresses natural resource concerns dealing with soilerosion, manure, and organic byproducts and theirpotential impacts on water quality, which may derivefrom an afo.19 usda-nrcs Standard 590: ftp: / / ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov / ia / technical / N590(12-2006).pdf.20 nrcs, eqip, cooperative extension, and private costshare are examples of existing programs that might beused to implement nutrient management plans.21 Working Land Conservation: Conservation SecurityProgram and Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutritionand Forestry. Washington, DC; 2007.22Hoop-barns, free-range, pasture based systems, etc.23 Animal husbandry is defined as the branch ofagriculture concerned with the care and breeding ofdomestic animals such as cattle, hogs, sheep, and horses(American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed).104

24 Sows have been bred to reproduce more quickly andtherefore produce more piglets per year, but a side effecthas been a decrease in maternal behavior / increasedpiglet mortality (Lund et al., 2002; Holm et al., 2004;Knol et al., 2001).25 United Egg Producers Certified program literature,available online at www.uepcertified.com.26 The 28-hour law was passed when trains were thepredominant method of animal transport.27 The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958, 1978,2002; Pub.L. 87-765, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 862.28 ftp: // ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov / ia / technical / N590(12-2006).pdf105

Final ReportAcknowledgments106

The pcifap is a two-year study funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts througha grant to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. This reportreflects the deliberations and consensus recommendations of the Commission.PCIFAP CommissionersJohn Carlin, ChairExecutive-in-residenceKansas State UniversityMichael Blackwell, dvm, mph,Assistant Surgeon General,usphs ( ret. )President and ceoBlackwell Consulting, llcBrother David Andrews, csc, jdFormer Executive DirectorNational Catholic Rural LifeConferenceFedele Bauccio, mbaCo-founder and ceoBon Appétit Management CompanyTom DempsterState Senator, South DakotaDan Glickman, jdFormer US Secretary of AgricultureChairman and ceoMotion Picture Associationof AmericaAlan M. Goldberg, phdProfessorJohns Hopkins Bloomberg Schoolof Public HealthJohn Hatch, drphKenan Professor EmeritusUniversity of North Carolina atChapel HillSchool of Public HealthDan JacksonCattle RancherFrederick Kirschenmann, phdDistinguished FellowLeopold Center for SustainableAgricultureIowa State UniversityJames Merchant, md, drphDeanUniversity of Iowa Collegeof Public HealthMarion Nestle, phd, mphPaulette Goddard ProfessorDepartment of Nutrition,Food Studies, and Public HealthNew York UniversityBill NimanCattle Rancher and Founderof Niman Ranch, Inc.Bernard Rollin, phdDistinguished Professorof PhilosophyColorado State UniversityMary Wilson, mdAssociate ProfessorHarvard School of Public HealthAssociate Clinical Professorof MedicineHarvard Medical SchoolThis report is supported by a grantfrom The Pew Charitable Trusts.The opinions expressed are thoseof the pcifap and do not necessarilyreflect the views of The PewCharitable Trusts.PCIFAP StaffRobert P. MartinExecutive DirectorEmily A. McVey, phdScience DirectorPaul WolfePolicy AnalystRalph LoglisciCommunications DirectorLisa BertelsonResearch AssociateThe Commission gratefullyacknowledges the contributionof Dr. Amira Roess during hertenure as Science Director withthe Commission.PCIFAP ConsultantsJeffrey T. OlsonFinal Report Author /EditorMichelle PilliodPilliod Meeting Planning, Inc.Cameron FletcherCopy EditorJamie ShorVenture CommunicationsAl QuinlanGreenberg, Quinlan,Rosner ResearchMichelle SnowmanBlattner BrunnerToren CarterBlattner Brunner107

The Commission and Commission staff acknowledge and thank The PewCharitable Trusts for funding this important project.The Commission and Commission staff also acknowledge and thankJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Dean Dr. Michael Klag forhis support, as well as Dr. Robert S. Lawrence and Dr. Ellen Silbergeld of theJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health for their support for thisproject as co-principal investigators. In addition, we recognize the staff of theCenter for a Livable Future for their assistance, particularly Shawn McKenzie,Assistant Director of the Center.Additional acknowledgment of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School ofPublic Health staff contribution to the success of the Commission includes:Jane Schlegel, Becky Hanst, Jacqueline Lizotte, Tishawn Pierce, and NicoleAaron. Pamela Weismann and Lana Valenzuela of Johns Hopkins Universityalso provided invaluable support.108

The following technical report authors contributedto the final report through the research and writingcommissioned by the pcifap.Brother David Andrews, csc, jdFormer Executive DirectorNational Catholic Rural Life ConferenceDes Moines, IowaLeonard S. Bull, phd, pasProfessor of Animal ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityAssociate DirectorAnimal and Poultry WasteManagement CenterRaleigh, North CarolinaJay Graham, phdJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimore, MarylandGregory GrayProfessorUniversity of IowaDepartment of EpidemiologyCollege of Public HealthIowa City, IowaRolf U. Halden, ms, phdAssociate ProfessorCertified Professional EngineerCenter for Water and HealthJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimore, MarylandAndCenter for Environmental BiotechnologyArizona State UniversityTempe, ArizonaKeri HornbuckleProfessorUniversity of IowaCivil and Environmental EngineeringCollege of EngineeringIowa City, IowaHarvey JamesAssociate ProfessorUniversity of MissouriDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsPracha KoonnathamdeeGraduate Research AssistantAgricultural Policy Analysis CenterUniversity of TennesseeDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsInstitute of AgricultureKnoxville, TennesseeEmily A. McVeyScience DirectorPew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal ProductionWashington, DCJoy A. MenchProfessorDirector of the Center for Animal WelfareUniversity of California, DavisDepartment of Animal ScienceJames MerchantProfessorThe University of IowaDepartment of Occupational & Environmental HealthDeanCollege of Public HealthIowa City, IowaDeanne Meyer, phdLivestock Waste Management SpecialistThe University of California at DavisDepartment of Animal ScienceDavis, CaliforniaDavid OsterbergClinical Associate ProfessorUniversity of IowaDepartment of Occupational & Environmental HealthCollege of Public HealthIowa City, IowaEdmond A. PajorAssociate ProfessorDirector of the Center for Food-Animal Well-BeingPurdue UniversityDepartment of Animal SciencesLance B. Price, phdJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimore, MarylandTimothy J. Kautza, mseScience and Environmental Education SpecialistNational Catholic Rural Life ConferenceDes Moines, Iowa109

Daryll E. Ray, phdProfessorAgricultural Policy Analysis CenterUniversity of TennesseeDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsInstitute of AgricultureKnoxville, TennesseeJ. Mark RiceAssistant DirectorNational CenterWaste Management ProgramsCollege of Agriculture & Life SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North CarolinaHarwood D. SchafferResearch Associate 11Agricultural Policy Analysis CenterUniversity of TennesseeDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsInstitute of AgricultureKnoxville, TennesseeKellogg J. Schwab, phdAssociate ProfessorDirector, Center for Water and HealthDepartment of Environmental Health SciencesJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimore, MarylandEllen Silbergeld, phdProfessorEnvironmental Health SciencesJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimore, MarylandOtto D. Simmons 111Assistant Research ProfessorThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, North CarolinaPaul B. ThompsonW.K. Kellogg Professor of AgricultureFood and Community EthicsMichigan State UniversityDepartments of Philosophy,Agricultural Economics and Community,Agriculture, Recreation and Resource StudiesPeter S. ThorneProfessorUniversity of IowaDepartment of Occupational & Environmental HealthCollege of Public HealthIowa City, Iowa110