Do Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Pose an Environmental Justice Concern?
By Mary Spears and Max Harleman
Many Americans never see where the food on their table comes from. This is especially true for meat products that make it from the farm to the table, without ever having to witness the conditions that the animals lived in. The majority of meat products in America are produced at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which according the USDA and EPA are agricultural operations where more than 1,000 animals are kept in “confined situations.” Much has been written about the how CAFOs threaten the local environment, but little thought has been given to whether they pose an environmental justice concern. Do CAFOs contribute to environmental injustice by being disproportionately located near low-income or minority households?
CAFOs are unequivocally unpleasant to live near, as they can contaminate water, soil, and air. CAFOs are currently regulated under the Clean Water Act as a point source of pollution, but that does not mean that the risks are eliminated. Several recent peer-reviewed studies have found that runoff and discharges from CAFOs contain elevated levels of ammonia, as well as nitrogen and phosphorus which can compromise aquatic ecosystems. They may also discharge bacteria from animal waste, which can contaminate drinking water supplies and threaten human health. The massive piles of manure at CAFOs can damage localized air-quality by emitting methane, ammonia, and endotoxins. Several studies have shown that emissions from CAFOs can cause respiratory diseases including asthma, allergies, and respiratory infections. Outside of the air and water impacts, CAFOs damage the aesthetics of the surrounding area, with their noxious smells and barren, muddy landscapes.
But do these health risks and unpleasant aesthetics disproportionately affect low-income or minority households? To explore whether CAFOs could pose an environmental justice concern, we explored data from Missouri. The state is home to thousands of CAFOs, ranks in the bottom ten states in terms of GDP, and ranks in the bottom-half of states in terms of the share of residents in poverty (13 percent). Given the state’s weak economy and abundance of CAFOs, Missouri is a fitting case to explore this question.
To explore whether CAFOs are more prevalent in nonwhite and low-income communities, we used a map provided by the state’s Department of Natural Resources. The map shows the locations of the largest classification of CAFOs that contain over 7,000 animals per site. They are concentrated in the north-central counties of Grundy, Mercer, Sullivan, and Putnam. Data from the 2020 Census suggests that three out of the four of these counties are at or below the average county share of nonwhite residents at 8 percent. The exception is Sullivan county, which has only a slightly higher than average share of 10 percent. In fact, Putnam county has among the lowest share of nonwhite residents — less than 3 percent.
We also looked at income data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data suggest that three of the four counties (Mercer, Putnam, and Grundy) are in the bottom third of counties in the state in terms of per capita income, with an average of just $38,000 in 2020. But perhaps comparing these counties to all counties in the same state is not comparing apples to apples. The association between CAFOs and income may be strictly a product of their owners locating them in wide-open, less densely developed areas where people just happen to be poor. This might be the case: when comparing Mercer, Putnam, and Grundy to four other counties in the same region that contain no CAFOs of the largest classification (Schuyler, Adair, Daviess, Harrison), their average per capita incomes are nearly identical.
Based on this analysis, do CAFOs in Missouri pose an environmental justice concern? The answer is “maybe.” While there appears to be no association between locations of the most environmentally-harmful facilities and race and income at the county level, it is possible that within counties they are disproportionately in low-income communities and communities of color. To determine if this were the case, we would need to conduct analyses with more localized data, such demographic characteristics at the census block-level, or even privately-sourced datasets on the people living at individual properties.
But even if relationships between CAFO locations, income and race were observed using more localized data, recent literature in the field of political economics suggests that there may be many explanations. The first explanation that typically comes to mind for an association between a hazard and demographics is that the owner of a hazard (like a CAFO) might intentionally place it in a low-income community or a community of color. Theoretically, residents there might have less ability or financial resources to oppose the facility during siting, and if the facility deteriorates property values they may be unable to buy a similarly-appointed residence further away. While the intentionality of this first explanation certainly makes it “feel” like an injustice, it is not the only explanation. Perhaps the CAFO provides jobs to low-income individuals, who move towards the facility (or chose not to move away) when it opens in order to work there.
In an important article that shaped our thinking on these issues, Banzhaf, Ma, and Timmins state: “Simply because the inequity is mediated through some mechanism does not mean it isn’t there.” For instance, lower-income workers living near a CAFO would still be disproportionately exposed to its harms, even if they participated in the decision to live near it and share in its economic benefits. But understanding the mechanisms that cause inequities is important because it helps us select appropriate policies to address them. While government oversight of siting procedures may be the right policy to address intentionally inequitable siting decisions, ensuring adequate and safe housing and drinking water quality for CAFO workers may be the right policy to address the labor market “pulling” low-income people towards hazards.
To further understand the mechanisms causing environmental inequities and how to correct them, an array of data on employment decisions, property values, perceptions of local residents, and local government finances are needed to truly understand why environmental hazards differentially affect disadvantaged communities, which represents a rich and budding field of human inquiry.
Mary Spears is a Senior Enrollment Coach at Georgia Military College in Milledgeville, GA. She received her Master of Public Administration (MPA) from Georgia College and State University (GCSU). She earned her Bachelor’s degrees in History and Political Science at GCSU, and enjoys researching the relationship between institutions of higher education and communities.
Max Harleman is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at Georgia College and State University. He teaches research design, policy analysis, and environmental policy courses in the Masters of Public Administration program. His research focuses on the well-being of people and communities that reside near energy and infrastructure development.
