EIP: Industrial Animal Agriculture Leads to a Cascade of Issues
The second-largest contributor to human-made greenhouse gas emissions, water, and air pollution, deforestation, and biodiversity loss all stems from one problem in the US; industrial animal agriculture. Because of the harmful effects of industrial animal agriculture, humans need to make changes in our agriculture systems to obtain a healthy and sustainable environment.
The causes of industrial animal agriculture stem from a long history of states and countries wanting to provide food in the cheapest way possible. Industrial animal agriculture isn’t a new problem; over the past 40 years, the United States has industrialized operations, replacing the balance of smaller, diversified farming with harmful systems that affect the environment. To make matters worse, the amount of stakeholders within industrial animal agriculture is endless. From industrial farmers, animals, consumers, the earth, anyone can be affected. Industrial animal agriculture has made it hard for smaller farms to compete, taking families out of business, who typically have more ethical and sustainable practices (Bristow). Because many consumers watch their budget, people are quick to go to factory farms because they produce cheap products, which is something that many people don’t want to pay the extra dollars on. The effects of the industry only focusing on budgeting and cheap products provides problems such as climate change and other environmental issues such as, but not limited to, water pollution, air pollution, animal abuse, and industrial worker abuse. Overall, the problem with industrial animal agriculture is that it results in even more problems.
To start, in regards to climate change, until recently, animal agriculture has not generally been recognized as a significant contributor to global climate change. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2006 release of the Livestock’s Long Shadow report stated that scientists have traditionally classified producers of greenhouse gases based on their participation in land-use changes, agriculture, and transportation (Bristow). Researchers concluded that industrial animal agriculture produces 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (Bristow).
Video: https://youtu.be/gXXOkhoki8s
Second, the link between industrial animal agriculture and water pollution, fertilizer runoff, methane emissions, and large-scale industrial agriculture pollution take a toll on the environment. In addition to the overall global pollution, water pollution is a major problem. When animals eat, they poop, and all of that farm animal waste needs to go somewhere. Unfortunately, those in the industry don’t treat animal waste safely and efficiently. Instead, they send it to a wastewater treatment plant through a municipal sewer system (July 31). Then, it’s put into land or gets into water systems and pollutes its surroundings. Not only is the waste that gets into the water, with poultry waste, which is mostly dry litter, a combination of the birds’ bedding materials (such as shavings), their feces, and loose feathers, which is then stored in exposed, giant mounds. Because chicken manure contains a higher percentage of phosphorus than other animal manure, it’s also prone to harming waterways with phosphorus runoff (July 31).
Next, the industry is harmful to workers and the environment. In a blog from ASPCA, ‘Matt’s Blog: Dangerously Fast Slaughter Speeds Are Putting Animals and People at Greater Risk During COVID-19 Crisis,’ Matt writes about the unethical companies, specifically Tyson, and how they have failed to provide PPE for employees working long hours in cramped slaughterhouses, but that supervisors also placed bets on how many workers would contract the deadly disease (Matt’s Blog). Specifically, Tyson’s culture of disregard for people’s lives has led to more than 49,000 slaughter plant workers testing positive for the virus since April, and at least 249 workers’ and five inspectors’ deaths (Matt’s Blog). The link between industrial animal agriculture and COVID-19 has shown problems with the ways industrial agriculture employees are being treated. Tyson Foods Inc., a company that produces 20% of the beef, pork, and chicken in the US, has suspended managers at Iowa for participating in a betting pool on how many employees will catch the coronavirus. (Woodbury). This is significant because it shows that Tyson Inc was not prioritizing the health and safety of its workers, something that can be common within the factory farming industry.
The question of why we still use industrial animal agriculture is still constantly questioned. Industrial animal agriculture is used because it’s cheaper than taking a way that is more efficient for the environment. Because many consumers watch their budget, people are quick to go to factory farms because they produce cheap products, which is something that many people don’t want to pay the extra dollars on. U.S. Department of Agriculture figures show the average American spent just 9.5 percent of his or her disposable income on food last year, a lower percentage than in any country in the world (Eng). Accordion to Dave Warner, spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council in Washington DC, “we have found the most efficient way to meet consumer demand for a high-quality, relatively inexpensive product,” but the effects on the environment should outweigh the cheap price we pay to consume unethically sourced food (Eng). Because the US is the lowest-cost producer in the world, the US takes pride in saving money on food. Supporters of industrial animal agriculture argue that it’s good because the cost of meat is decreasing, and the economy is most important to the decision-makers within the industry (Eng). But these decision-makers need to understand what disasters the system creates.
So how do we find a solution? First, stakeholders need to understand that we cannot address climate change without reducing the production and consumption of meat and dairy made from factory farms. The first step in creating a solution is to share the knowledge behind the risks of industrial animal agriculture. But there is more than just creating awareness. Activists and decision-makers can redirect the subsidies meaning that public funds should be redirected to support small farmers that use integrated agroecological and pastoral production methods, rather than continuing on with industrial animal agriculture (Grain). We can also divest from industrial meat and dairy. This means that “public-private partnerships to promote large-scale, intensive livestock farming should be eliminated” and there should be a stop to incentivizing factory farm expansion (Grain). Although these aren’t the only solutions, these are important steps people can take to stopping the change in climate and harmful effects on the earth. These are all examples of solutions that are being proposed but are yet to be in full effect.
When it comes to the problems and solutions of factory farming, there has to be identified stakeholders. According to authors Elizabeth Bristow and Amy J Fitzgerald of “Global Climate Change and the Industrial Animal Agriculture Link: The Construction of Risk,” there are a variety of stakeholders. From industrial farmers, animals, consumers, and the earth, anyone can be affected. Industrial animal agriculture has made it hard for smaller farms to compete, taking families out of business, who typically have more ethical and sustainable practices (Bristow). The key identified stakeholders are industrial agriculture workers, environmental organizations, decision-makers, consumers, and small farms.
For industrial agriculture workers, there have been many hardships from the start of the industry. From harsh working conditions, underpayment, and zero precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic, industry workers have faced many challenges in the animal agriculture business (Woodbury). Their health — physical and mental — is at stake, as well as their financial statuses. Consumers also face health risks such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes with the increase of factory farm meat consumption. Environmental organizations take on the challenge of having to go against (and endlessly get denied) help from government decision-makers and industry leaders (Woodbury). Small farms are also key stakeholders because they lose business due to the inexpensiveness of industrial farming.
The stakeholder list goes on and on, and it seems like there are more risks and problems with industrial animal agriculture than there are benefits. Because we live in a society where cost-effectiveness is more important than consumer health and the environment, it’s easy to feel helpless when it comes to trying to help the planet. The variety of stakeholders in this specific problem would bring out a variety of responses. For example, if consumers were informed more on the industry, some people’s beliefs could change. Environmental organizations would agree with the harms that industrial animal agriculture brings, while government leaders and decision-makers within the food and economic industry would be hesitant to move from factory farming. Although industrial agriculture workers are aware of the conditions that they work in firsthand, if they were given a better solution, I believe that they would choose to leave the industry.
In conclusion, the risks behind industrial animal agriculture far outweigh the notion of saving money to produce more food. If more people were educated on the risks and harm that the industry brings to the environment and consumers, a change could happen. It’s critical that current and future generations take the steps in our agriculture systems to obtain a healthy and sustainable environment.
