- Alison from Maryland -
The "factory farming" you refer to is called animal feeding operations (AFO), whereby nutrients are brought to animals and waste removed from their vicinity, but they do not move. Depending on the size and nature of the operation, such operations may meet criteria set by the EPA for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO). These types of operations can have a deleterious effect on the environment (although some sources note that overall environmental benefit can occur), and can produce meat products whose quality has come into question.
On the environmental front, the primary concern comes from the pollution in the waste stream. Manure and fecal waste from these operations carry into local water sources, and bring nitrogen, bacteria and other pathogens, ammonia, and other sources of pollution. This pollution not only poses a direct threat to human health, but can severely damage watersheds by causing fish kills and algae blooms. In addition to this threat to water, CAFO can affect land and air quality as well. Concentrated methane sourcing from the livestock, particulates, bacteria, fungi, and odors form a short list of local and global air quality issues that can result from CAFO. The same pollutants found in the air and water can also contaminate the soils on both the site of the operation as well as downstream of the source. (For more details see this Iowa Public Health report as well as this CDC report.) In addition to the pollution issue, with all the droughts across the Midwest this past summer, the concentration of such animal raising operations creates greater strain on local water resources in the areas they occupy. With the significant water requirements for raising livestock, this can significantly tax local economies and watersheds alike.
With regard to human health, research at California State University has suggested that pasture-raised meat (with more grass feeding) has higher nutrient content than grain-fed meat. CAFO animals receive feed as a slurry of grains (and sometimes even candy), which may decrease the nutrient quality even further. In addition, the animals receive regimens of antibiotics instead of treatment as needed, affecting the chemical content of the meat. Lastly, the working conditions inside CAFO resemble that of any large-scale manufacturing operation. The CAFO study by the University of Iowa addressed those concerns as well. These concerns, along with others raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggest that the lower cost of CAFO meat (from the economy of scale of production) may shift the cost burden to human and environmental health issues not accounted in the business model.
One last concern comes from some proposals within the corporate food world to hide CAFO operations from public viewing. The thought is that if people see the way in which the meat is raised, they may not want to eat it. One such law passed in Iowa earlier this year, and combined with the "veggie libel laws", could make it harder and harder to people to get a real sense of how their food is made.
So what of the options? You accurately identify "free range" as one moniker for livestock that has not grown in AFO plants. Another, "cage-free" has some concerns because the name notes that the animal did not grow up in a cage, but that does not mean they were not raised in a concentrated setting. In general, if you have concerns about the quality of CAFO-raised livestock, or want to wait for more research into the health and nutrition effects, you will want to look for meat that is "free range" and "grass fed". Better yet, find local farmers in your community and visit their operations, then find out where they sell their meat. We belong to a CSA (community supported agriculture) that sells eggs as part of our membership, but others also have access to meat products. The more you know about who raises your food, plus where and how they raise it, the more informed decisions you can make.
Although it may be an issue for another day, one last option is to eliminate meat altogether. With a high energy and water content, we cannot hope to supply the meat-centered diet of the average American to a world population of 10 billion people. Even reducing meat by one-half could significantly lower your environmental footprint.
No comments:
Post a Comment