This is exactly what has happened in a small but very significant planning battle taking place in Great Britain. Midland Pig Producers (MPP) has applied to build a state-of-the-art indoor hog production unit in Derbyshire, which would hold 2,500 sows and produce around 1,000 hogs a week for slaughter – one of the biggest industrial hog farms in the country. But in what might prove to be a fatal blow to MPP’s plans, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) – the U.K. government’s independent advisory body on health – has raised a number of human health concerns about the proposal, including the fact that “recent research has found that those living up to 150m [165 yards] downwind of an intensive swine farming installation could be at risk of adverse human health effects associated with exposure to multi-drug resistant organisms.”

According to the HPA’s statement (1), many scientific studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between ambient emissions and particulates released into the air – such as ammonia and fecal waste dust – and hospital admissions for both respiratory and cardiac diseases and deaths, particularly among older people and, for respiratory illness, children. The HPA also raised concerns about the risks posed by bioaerosols – or airborne particles that contain living organisms, their toxins and waste – which can be inhaled and ingested by humans. The HPA stated that there is significant potential for the generation of bioaerosols at intensive farming installations, with a range of possible health effects – including infectious and antibiotic resistant diseases, acute toxic effects, allergies, cancer, respiratory symptoms and lung function impairment.

Of course, none of this will come as a surprise to anyone in the U.S. who has the misfortune of living near one of thousands of U.S. industrial pig operations across the country. Indeed, U.S. industrial hog operations have been pumping toxic waste into our environment for years – just on a far, far bigger scale.

According to the National Hog Farmer’s latest State of the Industry Report, over 116 million hogs were slaughtered in the U.S. in 2010. Almost 90 percent all pigs slaughtered in the U.S. in 2008 came from hog operations with more than 5,000 pigs, while some of the largest U.S. hog operations can hold over 50,000 head of pigs in confinement. The bottom line is that the majority of pigs slaughtered in the U.S. come from hog operations that are larger than MPP’s proposed unit.

Industrial hog operations like these produce vast quantities of concentrated waste called swine effluent – a toxic concoction of pig feces, heavy metals, bacteria and, of course, residues from the concoction of pharmaceuticals that are given to the pigs to keep them alive in the filthy, confined conditions. Most U.S. factory farms pump this swine effluent in huge nearby open tanks or cesspools. Some of these lagoons are as big as several football fields, each holding hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of gallons of putrefying swine effluent.

Being exposed to the elements, these lagoons emit toxic gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as well as methane, a key greenhouse gas. As this swine effluent is expensive to store or treat, most industrial systems periodically pump the waste out of the lagoons and spray it on the surrounding fields. The problem is that it is often sprayed at such high application rates or so often that the soil and plants cannot even begin to absorb it, let alone actually utilize it. This level of over-application frequently leads to highly toxic run-off, where the water-soluble nutrients find their way into our waterways and groundwater systems in vast quantities, polluting our drinking water and rivers, leaving our waterways dead. Accidents and storm floods have also led to massive releases of the toxic waste into waterways. This toxic run off is directly contributing to the 230 recognized oxygen-deprived dead zones along the U.S. coast, such as in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers from Texas A&M University are predicting that the dead zone in the Gulf will exceed 9,400 square miles this year, which would make it one of the largest ever recorded.

A significant body of scientific research already proves that the livestock waste management practices found on most industrial livestock operations in the U.S. are often not fit for the purpose and do not adequately or effectively protect water resources from contamination with excessive nutrients, microbial pathogens and the pharmaceutical residues present in the swine effluent and other industrial farming waste. A 2007 review paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives (2) states, “Impacts on surface water sources and wildlife have been documented in many agricultural areas in the United States. Potential impacts on human and environmental health from long-term inadvertent exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals and other compounds are a growing public concern.”

The storage and frequent spreading of this toxic swine effluent also has a significant impact on the health of communities living nearby. A growing body of research reveals that the toxic emissions which U.S. industrial hog operations release into the atmosphere every day – including gases, particulates and bioaerosols such as hydrogen sulphide, fecal waste dust, and bacteria –are causing serious adverse health effects on U.S. citizens and making their lives a misery. A March 2011 paper published in the journal Epidemiology (3) examined the health of residents in 16 communities in a region of North Carolina that is densely populated with industrial hog operations. The researchers looked at the associations of reported hog odor and of monitored air pollutants with the physical symptoms and lung function of people living within 1.5 miles of hog operations. They found that air pollutants from the hog operations were causing acute physical symptoms, including eye and nasal irritation, respiratory symptoms, difficulty breathing, wheezing, chest tightness, and nausea, among other symptoms. The evidence was so great that the researchers concluded, “Exposure to air pollution from hog operations is an environmental injustice in rural areas hosting facilities that supply pork to populations spared the burdens of its production.”

We already know that industrial farming is a perfect breeding ground for the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, so the U.K.’s HPA’s concerns that the antibiotic resistant bacteria found on industrial hog operations could pose a real health risk to nearby human populations is clearly justified – and represents a significant public health issue for U.S. citizens. As U.S. hog operations are not subject to the same strict controls on the use of antibiotics as found on European farms, more U.S.-focused research is urgently needed to establish the risks.

In the drive to produce ever-cheaper meat it would appear that the pursuit of profit comes before all other concerns, including our health. Yet as the public finally wakes up to the huge societal costs of industrialized livestock production, including the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the explosion in diet-related ill health and the impact on rural economies, and as people recognize the unsustainable nature of industrialized livestock production, with its dependence on ever-diminishing supplies of fossil fuels and immense greenhouse gas emissions, the opportunity to radically change the way we farm is becoming more realistic – and more urgent – than ever.

References
1. Derbyshire County Council planning application consultation responses for the erection of a 2,500 breeding sow pig rearing unit near Foston. Available online at:
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/ESplanningapps/Planning-Applications/CW9-0311-174/9.1563.5/02-Consultation/RES.pdf

2. Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer. P. et al. (2007). Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115:308–312.

3. Schinasi, L., Horton, R.A., Guidry, V.T., Wing, S., Marshall, S.W., Morland, K.B. (2011). Air pollution, lung function, and physical symptoms in communities near concentrated swine feeding operations. Epidemiology. 22:208–215.

I bumped into Finley at the recent Good Food Festival in Santa Monica, CA. We got talking and he told me about his recent successful fight with city bureaucrats over his community garden and the grassroots initiative he’s set up to help urban communities to grow healthy, organic food for themselves. From the outset I liked the man, and we were clearly fighting the same fight, just on very different fronts. His story was as inspirational as anything I had seen or heard before.

Finley is a fashion designer by trade. He’s also a keen gardener: “It’s just something I’ve always done,” he explains. “It’s kind of spiritual, putting something in the ground and watching it grow.”
After attending a local gardening class run by Florence Nishida in 2010, where he first heard about edible gardens being set up in urban areas devoid of nature and fresh fruit and vegetables, Finley was inspired to do something in his own neighborhood. Hooking up with Nishida and a few other friends, he established LA Green Grounds, a grassroots initiative that seeks to help communities to set up productive gardens. As Finley explains, South Los Angeles is recognized by the USDA as a so-called ‘food desert,’ where fresh, healthy and affordable food is in very short supply: “LA Green Grounds was an attempt to change this from the ground up, to provide fresh fruits and vegetables for local people and to reconnect them with their food and how it’s grown.”

The idea is that LA Green Grounds helps people who want to set up a community edible garden but don’t know how: “We turn up with basic tools and a bunch of plants and teach people how to grow their own organic fruits, vegetables and herbs right in their own backyard.” So how does it work? “First, we establish whether or not the area is a viable plot for growing and if there is sufficient local support to make it happen. If it’s looking good, we work with the community to draw up a garden plan. Then, we plan a community ‘Dig In’ where friends and neighbors come together to create their garden. We teach them how to maintain it, even how to make compost. It’s all about instruction, demonstration and participation.”

LA Green Grounds brings along basic gardening equipment, and supply the compost, seedlings and plants for free. “All we ask in return is for those who we’ve supported to help at a future Dig In for another area,” Finley says. The LA Ground Website keeps folk informed of the location and date for future Dig Ins, and interest is growing all the time.

But it’s not just about growing healthy, affordable food for those who need it most. LA Green Grounds is using gardening to help rebuild communities in some of LA’s most deprived areas: “It’s remarkable how community gardening can bring about real change in neighborhoods. People turn up for some fresh food, or at the Dig Ins, and just start talking. And it always amazes me how planting a bunch of seeds or plants really can change someone’s life as they watch it grow, and then harvest it. I’ve seen people light up and literally change before my eyes.”

So what about the conflict with city officials? Well, after setting up LA Green Grounds, one of the first things Finley did was to convert his front yard into a community vegetable patch back in the fall of 2010. By spring 2011, he was growing tomatoes, peppers, squash, onions, eggplant, and more in this urban garden for himself and local residents. So what’s the big deal, you might ask?

Well, the problem was that this ‘garden’ was actually a 10ft by 150ft strip of land between the sidewalk and curb in front of his house – a so-called parkway. This land was not ‘his’ to cultivate; parkways are all managed by the city’s Bureau of Street Services, and converting it from lifeless scrub to a productive urban garden without permission was against the city rules. Finley was told he had to cut it down or apply for a $400 permit. But even with a permit the garden’s future looked in doubt, as the rules specified the maximum height (no more than 36 inches) and type of plants he could grow. “In an area so devoid of nature and healthy food it just seemed crazy that we couldn’t grow fresh fruit and vegetables,” Finley says. “They were happy for people to waste water on scrub, yet we could not use the land to grow food for people.”

So Finley and LA Green Grounds decided to challenge the rules. With a hearing set for the end of August, Finley set up a local petition to muster support for the garden, and soon gained almost 1,000 signatures. Once the community began to mobilize, the media began to take note. And it wasn’t long before local politicians also saw the light. At the end of August, Los Angeles officials announced that they had cancelled Ron Finley’s hearing and that he could keep growing. And according to a recent piece in the LA Times, local councilor Herb Wesson is now calling for changes in the rules so that urban gardeners can legally grow food on parkways and potentially other city-owned vacant areas. As Finley says, “We’re just trying to show people what can be done, just what is possible.”

An inspiration to all, Ron Finley is a true urban farming hero.

Find out more about LA Green Grounds at www.lagreengrounds.org.

So what’s ruffled my feathers? At issue here is a statement released by National Pork Producers Council President Doug Wolf on the new Government Accountability Office report, Antibiotic Resistance: Agencies Have Made Limited Progress Addressing Antibiotic Use in Animals.  Wolf says, “Not only is there no scientific study linking antibiotic use in food animals to antibiotic resistance in humans, as the U.S. pork industry has continually pointed out, but there isn’t even adequate data to conduct a study.” He continues, “The GAO report on antibiotic resistance issued today confirms this.”

Wolf’s comments are hogwash and he knows it. The truth is that the GAO report does nothing of the sort, nor was that ever its intention. Even from the report title it’s already pretty clear what the overall conclusion is: key government agencies – namely the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) which are primarily responsible for ensuring food safety in the U.S. – are not doing enough to combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria to public health. Far from “confirming” Wolf’s position, the GAO report states that, “Antibiotics have saved millions of lives, but antibiotic use in food animals contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria that may affect humans.”

What’s more, the GAO provided the USDA and HHS with a draft of the report for review and comment and both departments agreed with the GAO’s recommendations for urgent changes to ensure that the correct data is recorded. It’s there in black and white. So I hope you can understand my utter indignation when I read a so-called ‘news’ item about this very same GAO report on the hitherto balanced and respected Meatingplace.com with a headline of “GAO can’t find link between antibiotic use in food animals and human resistance.”  Rather than evaluate the report themselves it would appear that Meatingplace took the spin from the NPPC and ran it as fact.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that the National Pork Producers Council has fed the media with this kind of disinformation. In 2010, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Pork Producers Council, American Meat Institute and other industry bodies issued a joint statement which claimed, “there is no conclusive scientific evidence that shows the use of antibiotics on farms contributes significantly to an increase in antibiotic resistance in humans.”

The statement above flies in the face of fact. Only the willfully ignorant could ignore the recent World Health Organization (WHO) report which states that the “effectiveness of critically important antimicrobials for human medicine should not be compromised by inappropriate over-use and/or misuse in the non-human sector.” If we really had nothing to worry about, why did Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the WHO, warn earlier this year that, “In the absence of urgent corrective and protective actions, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era in which many common infections will no longer have a cure and, once again, kill unabated”? Why did the WHO dedicate World Health Day 2011 – an annual global PR initiative to highlight a priority area of concern to the WHO – to the very plight of combating the rampant rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

When it comes to protecting your future health, and the health of your family, who would you trust? A motley crew of lobbying organizations whose industry-funded objective is to protect and promote the interests (i.e., profit) of companies that control the industrialized livestock farming industry above all else? Or the World Health Organization (WHO), a world renowned specialized agency of the United Nations that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health?

Scientists have known for years that intensive farming systems provide a perfect breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant disease-causing bacteria. And this isn’t something that’s just happening in other countries: it’s happening in our own backyards. It is also killing Americans every year and unless we do something about it now, it’s going to get a whole lot worse. And while the NPPC is unable to put science ahead of profit, the United States Department of Agriculture has already admitted the link.

Recent cases of antibiotic-resistant E. coli, Salmonella and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have all been linked to industrial farming. A recent study by University of Iowa found MRSA in swine and swine workers in the United States. The investigators found a strain of MRSA, known as ST398, in a swine production system in the Midwest. “Because ST398 was found in both animals and humans, it suggests transmission between the two,” said the lead author of the study. “Our findings also suggest that once MRSA is introduced, it may spread broadly among both swine and their caretakers. Agricultural animals could become an important reservoir for this bacterium.” This begs the question, “Who is the NPPC really representing?” By denying the existence of the link between the use of antibiotics and the obvious threat to farmers’ health and livelihood the NPPC demonstrates complete disregard, if not contempt for the farmers it allegedly represents.

NPPC’s position shows a failure of industry to address systemic problems that are threatening public health. A nationwide study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal in April 2011 found “unexpectedly high levels” of antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in fresh meat and poultry from grocery stores. Analyzing 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey from 26 retail grocery stores in five major U.S. cities, researchers found that nearly half of the meat and poultry samples—47 percent—were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria—52 percent—were resistant to at least three antibiotics. The most recent incident was the outbreak of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella Heidelberg this summer, which was linked to a single Cargill meat processing plant in Arkansas, killing one and sickening more than 80 people. Cargill’s plant reopened over the summer, only to close again just weeks later with a further recall of contaminated meat.

When it comes to matters of global human health, surely honesty and transparency must always prevail? Unfortunately, history tells us otherwise. We know that during the 1970s the tobacco lobby fought blood, tooth and nail to protect its own corporate interests, despite overwhelming evidence that they were killing their customers. In its fight for survival, we can expect the industrial farming lobby to do all it can to protect itself.

The State of the Plate DC (www.StateofthePlateDC.net) daylong conference is set for Monday, October 17, 2011 at George Washington University’s Marvin Center and will feature a series of panels and notable speakers, focused on sharing best practices, information, and strategies. The event is designed for chefs, restaurateurs, distributors, farmers, ranchers, food leaders, students, faculty and those interested in the topic.

Ultimately, producers want to sell meat and restaurants want to buy it. This event will allow both producers and chefs/restaurant owners to discuss the terms of the trade via lively discussions, and then potentially engage in actual deal‐making that satisfies the needs of both groups. Designed to share information in a positive format, focus will be on sustainable farming, animal product preparation, the myths and realities of food labeling, and supply chain management.

This event is organized by Animal Welfare Approved, the industry leader in auditing and certifying family farms that raise their animals sustainably, outdoors on pasture or range according to the highest welfare standards. The co‐organizer is Educated Eats (the education foundation arm of RAMW), dedicated to creating the next generation of culinary professionals. The George Washington University’s Urban Food Task Force is the event’s key collaborator.

“DC chefs are increasingly renowned for their commitment to top‐quality, sustainable, healthy, and delicious foods. I’m delighted to see more of them entering the dialogue about sustainable and high‐welfare farming. State of the Plate DC fits well with the mission of George Washington’s Urban Food Task Force; it offers hands‐on opportunities for chefs and producers to work together in advancing the conversation about food policy and action,” says Diane Robinson Knapp, Chair, The George Washington University Urban Food Task Force.

Animal Welfare Approved program director Andrew Gunther added, “We believe that attendees will gain a better understanding of the challenges and rewards of developing sustainable food supply chains, but even more importantly, participants will have the opportunity to meet with and taste products from farmers already delivering solutions.”

“Educated Eats is thrilled to be working with our partners on this sustainable meat conference, continuing our series of seminars for our members,” says Gregory Casten, Chairman of the Board of RAMW. “We look forward to raising awareness for chefs and restaurateurs about the many benefits of sustainable farming practices‐‐including raising animals outdoors on pasture or range. Using sustainably raised animal proteins can help improve a restaurant’s image, efficiency and performance.”

Tickets: $55 includes continental breakfast and boxed lunch from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Advance registration is required. Seating is limited so be sure to register early. To register online visit www.StateofthePlateDC.net. From 5:00‐6:30 pm a sustainable meat tasting reception will bring together members of the RAMW with farmers, distributors and processors.

Location: The conference will be held at the George Washington University’s Marvin Center, 800 21st Street, Washington, DC 20052.

Questions: Contact Laura Colombi with questions at (202) 446‐2138.

Members of the press are encouraged to contact Beth Hauptle at (202) 446‐2155 to reserve complimentary press passes.

Despite ongoing protests and legal challenges from environmental groups, land managers, federal agencies and other organizations, the USDA’s decision paves the way for the unregulated use of GM lawn seed in U.S. neighborhoods – and a potentially dramatic increase in the use of a toxic herbicide that is increasingly being linked to adverse impacts on human health and the wider environment.

Kentucky bluegrass is one of the most popular domestic grass varieties in the U.S. and is commonly sown for use in gardens, parks and school fields. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (Scotts) has genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass so that it is resistance to a commonly used herbicide, glyphosate. This means that users can sow the grass seed and use the herbicide to kill off weeds without harming the lawn, and would result in the first ever GM plants available for actual use by the general public. Sounds like a time saving solution? Well, as with any genetically modified ‘quick-fix’, there are significant hidden dangers that we all need to urgently consider.

In a press statement conveniently released just before the busy holiday weekend, the USDA stated that Scotts’ proposals did not require any regulation because the organisms used in generating the GM Kentucky bluegrass were not considered to be plant pests, and that Scotts also did not use a plant pest to genetically engineer the Kentucky bluegrass. In effect, the USDA contended that the GM plant was “substantially equivalent” to non-GM Kentucky bluegrass and therefore did not require more stringent safety testing. In addition, as the GM process involved a single gene insertion, the USDA argued that this did not actually result in the creation of a new species of Kentucky bluegrass. Once again, no additional regulations were deemed necessary.

It seems that, with the helping hand of the USDA, the powerful biotech industry is having its cake and devouring it. Despite using state-of-the-art “biolistics” recombinant DNA technology to splice a single gene from one completely unrelated plant variety (Arabidopsis thaliana) to confer glyphosate herbicide tolerance to another, the USDA does not consider this GM crop to be a ‘new’ plant species, thereby avoiding regulation. Yet Scotts (and other biotech companies for that matter) can also claim full intellectual property rights on their ‘new’ GM plants and exercise complete control over how the seed is used. I call that a ‘win-win’ situation for Big Ag where we, the public and the farmers, are the ultimate losers.

Call me a cynic but it came as no surprise to find out that Scotts is also Monsanto’s exclusive agent for the international marketing and distribution for consumer usage of Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that any future sales of Scott’s GM herbicide-tolerant grass seed will also result in increased sales of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. After all, that’s the whole purpose of Monsanto’s agreement with Scotts: they want to maximize the sales of their toxic herbicide. And with over 50,000 square miles of U.S. lawns out there, our yards and parks represent a huge and hitherto untapped market for the GM industry.

But ever since Scotts first announced its intention to develop GM Kentucky bluegrass seed, environmental campaigners have raised alarm over possible environmental impacts associated with its widespread domestic use. As Kentucky bluegrass is wind-pollinated and readily hybridizes with other grasses, they warned that GM Kentucky bluegrass would easily cross-pollinate and contaminate wild grass relatives, as well as non-GM Kentucky bluegrass grown by organic farmers as livestock feed. They warned that the sowing of GM lawn seed would also inevitably lead to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weed problems and an inability to remove herbicide-resistant weedy grasses from naturally protected areas. They also warned of the associated increased use of glyphosate herbicide and even more toxic pesticides where glyphosate becomes ineffective.

These concerns are well-founded: glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which is already widely used by farmers with Monsanto as ‘Roundup Ready’ crops, including soy, maize and canola. There are already many unintended consequences of GM crops, with the widespread development of herbicide-resistant weeds, novel pest and soil nutrient problems. And despite early promises that GM farming would dramatically reduce the quantities of herbicides used in agriculture, research now shows that Roundup use in the U.S. has actually increased 15-fold since 1994 when the first herbicide-tolerant GM crops were introduced.

Scientists are now finding that glyphosate is widely present in our soils, waters and on our food as a result of the explosion in its use over the last two and a half decades. More troubling, however, is that independent scientific studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is resulting in a number of potential human health problems, including birth defects from exposure during pregnancy, as well as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) and other forms of cancer in animals and humans. Evidence also suggests that glyphosate may affect the nervous system and could even be implicated in Parkinson’s disease. Independent scientists have reported that the agrochemical industry has known about birth malformations in experimental animals caused by even low doses of glyphosate since the early 1990s.

The introduction of GM glyphosate-resistant Kentucky bluegrass will force us all to become subjects of an experiment that should have happened in the USDA’s laboratories – not in our lawns, backyards, in our local neighborhoods, and in parks where our kids play. This experiment will further increase the use of this toxic herbicide, and will inevitably lead to the cross-pollination with wild relatives and the many environmental problems this will entail. The potential human health impacts have yet to be discovered, but I know I would plow my lawn up if I thought this seed was in it. For the sake of a few weeds, are the potential risks of GM lawns really worth it?

Read the Q&A from APHIS here.

Now, in a report that anyone with even a simple understanding of biology will react to by saying “…and it took you how long?” the FDA has admitted that arsenic does indeed remain in the body of birds fed this dangerous element. This discovery that arsenic persists in the livers of meat chickens has caused Alpharma, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., to voluntarily remove its arsenic containing feed additive Roxarsone from the market. As any high school student knows, the liver of birds and animals is effectively a filter working to remove unwanted contaminants from the body. And like all filters, the liver can become saturated or indeed fail completely if it is overwhelmed by toxins. So the discovery of arsenic in the liver of broiler chickens fed a diet containing this element is of no great surprise.

You might ask why arsenic is in poultry feed at all. When you look up one of the many drugs containing arsenic licensed by the FDA, the indications for use are “for the prevention of coccidiosis, for increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency.”  Coccidiosis is a parasite caused by overstocking and intensive facility use. As it is so often with Big Ag, rather than fixing the system, it tries to mitigate it with drugs and poisons–the unintended consequences of Big Ag’s failure to look further than the bottom line when designing food animal systems. Most of the rest of the world recognizes that adding a known poison to something you are going to eat is not a great idea. For example arsenic is prohibited from being added to any animal feed in the Europe. This is not just because of the human health risks but also because of the known pollution problems. Think back to the FDA statement that arsenic will be excreted by the birds and animals it is fed to – where do you think that excreted arsenic ends up? Arsenic is a chemical element in its own right. It doesn’t break down or degrade – once it’s out there in the environment, it’s out there, destroying ecosystems and polluting watercourses.

This is another breathtaking example of the arrogance of the U.S.’s food animal production industry. For this industry, profit comes before everything. Once again we see misrepresentation and rhetoric exposing U.S. consumers to potentially life threatening food products. You want past examples? How about the fact that despite the rest of the world understanding the connection between shoveling antibiotics into animal feed and the same antibiotics becoming resistant to bacteria (and therefore worthless for human treatment) Big Ag stoically questions the science.   This proves again that Big Ag in the U.S. is unwilling to let facts get in the way of profit.

Despite stating that the use of arsenic in chicken feed had previously stopped, major chicken producer Perdue resisted a proposed bill to ban the additive in Maryland last year. Tyson Foods has made similar statements about the use of arsenic but it is estimated that around 2.2 million pounds of arsenical feed additives are used in poultry food each year. Exactly where has this vast mountain of arsenic been going I find myself asking? The FDA study was first available in February. It is interesting that it only seems to have seen the light of day now. Perhaps it was suppressed while waiting for Big Ag to work out a position to police itself.

For those of us with a healthy distrust of the power of Big Ag we are left relying on a voluntary withdrawal of one of the several available arsenic containing products rather than a complete and enforceable ban on all arsenic in feed. With the weight of growing evidence, a complete ban would hardly be groundbreaking – and in fact would just bring the U.S. in line with the rest of the modern world.  But, for now I suppose we’ll settle for the voluntary withdrawal.  I know my family and I will continue eating pastured poultry from Animal Welfare Approved farms.

When you look more closely at such reports you find that they don’t take into account the massive energy and oil costs associated with growing and transporting the corn to the feedlot. Neither do they address the significant pollution costs of the manure produced. According to David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist specializing in agriculture and energy, a typical intensively reared steer will in effect consume 284 gallons of oil in its lifetime because the corn and soya fed to intensively reared animals requires artificial fertilizer and other agrochemicals. If we further intensify livestock farming to meet demand for cheap meat, we’ll also need to increase the production of grain required to feed them. Producing more grain will require more artificial fertilizers and more artificial fertilizers means increased oil consumption and increased greenhouse gas production. This trend of unsustainable consumption of natural resources is thought by some to be linked to the destruction of the Mayan culture.

The Miracle of Pasture: Carbon Sequestration
One might think the answer is simply to ban all meat production. But we can’t lump all meat production together, especially now that scientists recognize the net positive effect that pasture-based farming systems can have on greenhouse gas emissions. This is achieved through a process called carbon sequestration.

As cattle and other ruminants graze pasture, they stimulate the grasses to grow and produce more leaves. As the grass grows it absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere and creates a mass of roots under the ground, effectively storing the CO2 in a much more stable form of carbon which can remain in the soil for centuries. Scientists have now established that grasslands are even more efficient than trees in sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. In fact, researchers now think that raising cattle on pasture and restoring grasslands could play an important role in locking atmospheric CO2 in the soil, thereby slowing the global warming process. At Animal Welfare Approved, we believe that grass-based farming is a vital method for sequestering more atmospheric carbon and reducing our overall global emissions.

Agroecology CAN Feed the World
If anyone tells you that high-welfare, low input pastured-based farming won’t “feed the world,” tell them to think again. A new report from the United Nations says farmers can meet growing demand using ecologically sound agricultural methods. This UN report calls for a fundamental shift towards what it calls agroecology as a way to boost production, stating that scientific evidence demonstrates that low input agroecological methods of farming outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where it is needed most – especially in unfavorable environments. This method of farming is good for people and good for the environment, too.

The bottom line is this: intensive farming systems are polluting the ground, water and air, causing huge health and welfare problems for both animals and humans, and contributing significantly to climate change. We know that producing meat and dairy from true pasture-based systems not only improves the health and welfare of farm animals, but is far less likely to cause environmental pollution. We also now know that pasture-based farming has a potentially vital role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration. Finally, pasture-based meat and dairy products also offer real human health benefits in terms of higher levels of omega-3s, CLAs and vitamin E, as well as reducing the risk of E. coli infection.

So, as we enter Earth Week 2011, why not use this opportunity to reduce your consumption of unsustainable, low-welfare, intensively reared feedlot meat and dairy – and choose high-welfare, pasture-based meat and dairy products instead? Animal Welfare Approved’s online directory makes it easy to find AWA-certified farms and products in your area and to support sustainable farming. Pasture-based farming can bring real benefits to us all, not only through healthier products but by helping to protect the planet for future generations.

De Schutter is right. Farming that relies on inputs that destroy the atmosphere, pollute our drinking water, make our antibiotics ineffective and treat workers, communities and animals as garbage, is not a viable option for the future. In reality, those of us who deal with sustainable agriculture on a regular basis are constantly looking towards the future. That’s the entire basis of sustainable agriculture- being able to sustain production into the FUTURE.  I discussed that in a blog last summer and in light of the Economist series, I thought it appropriate to revisit that blog.

The New, Bright Reality-We CAN Feed the World Sustainably, Humanely- from June 29, 2010

Big Ag isn’t going to like the recent report issued by the United Nations one bit because it threatens its very existence. Big Ag wants you to believe that unsustainable farming practices that lock animals in barren cages and feedlots are the only way to provide enough meat, dairy and eggs. That arable systems only work if you spray the fields three or four times with poisons. That leaving mountains of poisonous manure and contaminated water that sickens our children is just the cost of doing business. That this abhorrent failing system that takes profit from farms and diverts it to corporate monoliths with no conscience or morality is just the way it has to be.

Yes, Big Ag really needs you to believe that this massive failed experiment called modern mono-agriculture is our only chance to stave off worldwide hunger. But, it turns out, it’s not.

The new U.N. report, “Dead Planet, Living Planet: Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration for sustainable development,”  made me smile. The report documents over 30 successful reforestation case studies and proudly proclaims, “Restoration is not only possible, but can prove highly profitable …” In one region alone, known as the “Desert of Tanzania,” agroforestry (planting trees and crops on the same parcel) increased household income by up to $500 U.S. a year. The average yearly household income for Tanzania is under $500 U.S. per year.

The approach recommended was a blend of the new and the old: pest management using natural predators, intercropping agroforestry, silviculture and green manure. The Animal Welfare Approved program has routinely held the position that scientifically sound humane and sustainable systems are the alternative to the failed experiment of Big Ag, and are the way to feed and water the world. Corporations manipulate science and the truth for corporate gain, so it’s refreshing then that the models profiled in the U.N. report are easy to implement, readily available proven successes.

A recent meeting on agroecology organized under the auspices of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, and featuring many world experts on the subject, also brought a smile to my face. Reporting on their findings, De Schutter said that governments and development agencies can help to promote fairer, more inclusive business models that support local small farmers and others in their relations with governments and investors.

The committee concluded that, “Agroecological farming, which improves food production and farmers’ incomes while at the same time protecting the soil, water and climate, could feed an estimated world population of nine billion people by 2050 and go a long way to save the climate, if implemented now.” This comes on the heels of, “Telling Porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production,” the recent report published in the U.S. jointly by AWA and the Soil Association showing that the previous estimates of food needs of the world were exaggerated by Big Ag by as much as 30 percent.

There is an overwhelming feeling among big thinkers, like the ones that make up De Schutter’s committee, that a new model of food production is the solution. It is time governments truly invest in the future and put money into sustainable systems that are better for the environment, better for the animals, better for the farmers and so much better for our children. It will be interesting to see how Big Ag reacts to this announcement. We can expect that in the coming months “scientists” will be publishing findings that attempt to refute the agroecology concept; you might look to see who is paying their wages directly or indirectly.

We’ve known for decades that we must stop building and exporting replicas of our own failing systems to fragile and impoverished areas of the world. Exporting U.S. agricultural models is modern-day colonialism at its worst. It rips profits from ever fewer local farmers who can ill afford it, disrupts local access to clean, fresh water and degrades crop land over the long term. In the most vulnerable regions of the world, agricultural monoliths are re-creating a cultural structure we have spent years dismantling. This time we can stop the spread of a dangerous system that uses money instead of guns to grab land and dominate the people.

In the words of Professor De Schutter “With more than a billion hungry people on the planet, and the climate disruptions ahead of us, we must rapidly scale up these sustainable techniques.” Even if it makes the task more complex, we have to find a way of addressing global hunger, climate change, and the depletion of natural resources, all at the same time. Anything short of this would be an exercise in futility.

Pop Quiz:

In the US, what percent of all antimicrobial drugs are administered to animals?

A) 0% – Why would anyone give animals antibiotics used for humans?

B) 15% – Ehh, a little antibiotic-resistant bacteria helps keep us all on our toes.

C) 50% – Hey, we should push the envelope and find out how severely we can impair public health!

D) 80% – Prudence is for idiots!  Let’s administer antibiotics recklessly and see what happens!

Correct answer: D.  Sadly.

Unfortunately, this fact shouldn’t come as much of a surprise; the Union of Concerned Scientists provided the same stat ten years ago in the 2001 report, Hogging It: Estimates of Antimicrobial Use in Livestock.  Of course, industry has since ignored and/or rejected this figure every chance they’ve had (“[moan]; 80% is grossly inflated,” “[groan], UCS is totally biased,” “[smirk] antibiotics are an integral component of a healthy diet!” etc.)

But despite the best efforts of Agribiz, as this week’s press release from Congresswoman Louise Slaughter reports, the FDA has officially confirmed the 80% figure; check it out.  I should note that our friend Ralph Loglisci of the Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable Future contacted the FDA back in December and was given the same numbers (he wrote an excellent post about this, which is absolutely worth reading).  Nonetheless, it seems significant that the antibiotics stats have been released to and publicized by a congressperson.  Very official, we think – and hopefully capable of capturing the nation’s attention.

Why does this matter?

Because the wanton overuse of antibiotics by industrial livestock producers threatens human health!  Here’s why – if you administer a low dose of antibiotics to animals on a factory farm, you risk promoting the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  (The antibiotics kill off some bacteria, but bacteria with resistant traits survive, passing their resistant traits along to future generations; find an overview of the process on Sustainable Table’s Antibiotics page – or if you want all the details, visit the Keep Antibiotics Working website.)

What’s wrong with promoting the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

It makes antibiotics less effective – including the antibiotics used to treat humans.

Well then why would factory farms recklessly administer antibiotics for nontherapeutic purposes?

Because it increases their profits.  Industrial livestock producers love antibiotics because they boost animal growth rates (which allows them to fatten animals faster using less feed) and because they help fend off disease, which would otherwise quickly become widespread due to the crowded, stressful, filthy conditions in which factory farmed animals are raised.

Shouldn’t there be a law against this irresponsible practice?

Yeah.  Unfortunately though, there isn’t.  Yet; Congresswoman Slaughter is the author of the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which would prohibit the use of medically important antibiotics as growth promoters for animals.  Slaughter plans to introduce PAMTA to Congress (again) this year; we’re hoping that the FDA figures inspire prudent legislation.

Photo credit: Janice Carr, Public Health Image Library (PHIL)

My visit began at the front of the local high school in the town of Thermopolis, where I met with David Stoner, who manages the Arapaho Ranch on behalf of the Tribal Council of the Northern Arapaho Nation. David is one of those people who can say a huge amount with very few words, and as we drove out to the first pasture it quickly became clear that the Arapaho Tribe had struck gold by appointing him to manage their ranch. David talked passionately about the grazing strategy that he uses to maintain the productivity of the land. He rotates the cattle around the different areas of the ranch to graze throughout the year. This rotational grazing strategy ensures that the grassland is always vibrant and full of young, vigorously growing grasses, ready for grazing on the next rotation. And as they graze the pasture, the cattle also consume mature grass seed, which is later deposited elsewhere on the land – encased in a healthy dollop of natural fertilizer – helping to encourage the multitude of ancient grasses to naturally reseed.

The more we moved around the ranch, the more I realized just how unique this space was. As we chatted, we saw more non-farmed animals than farmed, with moose, elk and deer grazing the pasture. David explained that this method of ranching recognizes these fellow “users” of the range as equal inhabitants, rather than as competitors. Indeed, the farm’s website proudly proclaims the Northern Arapaho Tribe’s intent “to reconnect with its strong traditions as a hunter/gatherer society whose very existence depended on its willingness to live in harmony with nature.”

This mission is reflected in the unique wolf management plan at the ranch, which has been approved by the federal government and gives the tribe full control over decisions concerning the local wolf population. In its opening paragraph the plan states that: “Traditional views of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes recognize wolves as kin, as helpers, as strong, and as deserving of respect and placed here by the Creator for a purpose.” I knew wolves lived on the ranch and had heard tales that wolves would readily take both wild and domesticated animals. So how did the ranch deal with this threat? David quickly put me straight: First, he isn’t convinced that the threat is real; second, the plan – and the beliefs of the Arapaho Tribe – means that he can only address the challenge using non-lethal management.

The wolf control plan at the ranch is as fascinating as it is plain old common sense. David explained that the whereabouts and hunting patterns of the wolves are well-known by him and the ranchers, so they simply ensure that any cattle that graze in the areas patrolled by wolves are cattle that are “not prey.” I must have looked a little confused. “Wolves take the injured, sick and young,” he explained. By ensuring that any injured, sick or young cattle are not grazed in the range of the wolves, the issue of predation is avoided. It’s a very simple and symbiotic solution to the challenge, which is reflected elsewhere on the ranch. These older, stronger cattle drift as they graze and this spares the riparian pastures and encourages seed spread. The ranch team is made up of cowboys who grew up with the philosophy of respect for and knowledge of their surroundings, and who know how to interact with the “other” inhabitants of the ranch.

I noted that surface runoff from rainfall and snow melt isn’t as big a problem here as it is in other farms I’ve visited. Heavy rains can lead to flooding and fast moving water, which can flatten large areas of pastures and cause soil erosion. I asked David how he managed to keep runoff damage down. “Beavers,” he said. My eyes must have spoken volumes. I had no idea how you might control runoff with beavers, but I knew that this was going to be interesting. As we all know, beavers chop down trees to make dams and, in doing so, clear small patches of forest where light can fall on the highly fertile soil. These are great for grazing cattle, he explained, while also providing access to water. But perhaps the key byproduct of the beavers’ presence is that their dams act to slow down the flow of water and control runoff, like man-made dams but in a less heavy-handed way.

It was clear that what David and the Council are doing with this land is right, and that the care and compassion that David and his team show for the flora and fauna profits everyone and everything on the ranch. But as we prepared to leave, my heart sank in the realization that this farming utopia could not possibly make a bottom-line profit without some complicated argument about the value of habitat conservation; or the fact that grazing the pastures in this way actually locks atmospheric carbon dioxide into the ancient grassland through carbon sequestration; or by explaining the net positives of not using artificial fertilizers, which inevitably leach nitrogen and phosphorus into the water table.

So I was utterly taken aback when David said that the farm was making an operating profit. Here is a living, breathing, working example of how to farm in a truly sustainable way and still make a living – even by today’s skewed perceptions – yet be a billionaire in the eyes of those who value nature and the planet. The Arapaho Ranch is not just the pride of the Northern Arapaho Tribe: It’s an example to us all.

Originally published in the Animal Welfare Institute Quarterly, Winter 2011.