The Livestock Industry: A breeding ground for viruses

The swine flu is yet another problem we can attribute to our modern meat industry. Mike Davis, in “The swine flue crisis lays bare the meat industry’s monstrous power”, explains that the H1N1 swine flu evolved in industrial pigsties of the American pork industry. While this article was written before the H1N1 swine flu had made the move from pigs to humans, Davis correctly anticipates the flu’s pandemic status. On the modern pig farm pigs, whose immune systems have been weakened as the result of selective breeding, live in extremely high population density pens in pools of their own filth. Pigs were not always raised in this high-density manner. “In 1965, for instance, there were 53m US hogs on more than 1m farms; today, 65m hogs are concentrated in 65,000 facilities” (Davis n.pag.). These farms, which can have tens of thousands of pigs under one roof, make for an ideal breeding ground for pathogens, such as the swine flu.

By intensively farming livestock in this way, we have basically created factories for pathogenic viruses. While H1N1 turned out to be only mildly dangerous, no one knows how deadly the next virus will be. And with the rate of mutation that is possible in these virus factories, there will surely be many more viruses making the transition from livestock to humans in the coming years.

The worst part about this situation is how little is being done to combat this problem. As of April 2009, Davis explains that although researchers were aware of that H1N1 could make the move to humans, our government ignored suggestions to create even an official system to monitor the virus. And the pork industry is not helping either. In fact, a Pew Research Center Commission, while investigating virus mutation in livestock, “reported systemic obstruction of their investigation by corporations, including blatant threats to withhold funding from cooperative researchers” (Davis n.pag.). This practice is completely unacceptable. When a livestock farming company uses practices that could create viruses possible of killing thousands, they should not be allowed to interfere with investigations. And if they are there should be a public uproar against them.

A few questions I think this reading raises:

-Do the economic costs of the health care required to combat viruses created on industrial livestock farms as well as the loss in productivity that results from people getting sick actually outweigh the economic savings that result from the improved efficiency of this type of farming?

-Who should be responsible for monitoring the pathogens being created on livestock farms? The Government? The WHO? The companies that are actually breeding the viruses?

The Problem With Industrial Produce

In “The Illusions of control: industrialized agriculture, nature, and food safety”, Diana Stuart explores some of the health concerns that have arisen in our modern produce industry. Stuart looks specifically at the 2006 outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in bagged spinach. Most believe that the spinach was contaminated while still in the fields by wild pigs that transported the E. coli from a neighboring beef farm, where the high concentration of cattle produced the disease. As a result, in an effort to keep their farms safe and prevent future contamination, some farmers began clearing out surrounding forests where wild animals might live and shooting any wild animals that came on their farm. This also led farmers and packagers to increase the amount of chemical sprays and washes that the spinach received to prevent disease. Both of these practices cause obvious environmental problems with the destruction of animals and their habits and the pollution of runoff that occurs because of chemicals. The clearing of surrounding habits is particularly concerning because many of the plants that are being cleared are there because the help to filter the fertilizer and pesticide filled runoff that comes from the farm. Stuart also explains that this has this outbreak has contributed to the development of new technologies, such as optical bacteria testing devices, that only give the illusion of safety. Stuart argues that all of these “solutions” are just temporary and ineffective solutions to a larger problem.

The real problem is that the extreme large-scale of the produce growing and packaging industry not only causes contamination problems but also proliferates them. Large-scale industrial production allows us to provide produce at low prices. But are we actually paying more because of the medical costs of the health problems the produce causes? This would be a very interesting question to study.

Should we abandon the idea of large-scale agriculture just because of the health problems? In my opinion, no, because the frequency and severity of food borne illness outbreaks does not seem to be high enough to warrant such a reaction. This does, however, provide us with yet another reason to buy local agricultural products, which tend to be safer smaller-scale operations, whenever possible.

The Ethics of Meat

I have already explored some of the environmental, health, and economic problems with meat production, but I have yet to discuss the ethical problems. What is it that makes the treatment of an animal unethical? Is it possible to raise animals or eat ethically? These are just a few questions that immediately come to mind. In “The Ethics of Eating Animals”, a chapter from The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan explores the question; is it ethical to eat animals? Writing this chapter Pollan comes in with a certain bias because he, at least at the point of writing the book, is a vegetarian so would be inclined to answer the question with a no. Pollan, however, does an excellent job of expressing both sides of the issue and does not let his own bias bleed strongly into the writing.

The majority of the animals we eat have complex enough nervous systems that most scientists agree that they can feel pain. Whether or not we should be allowed to cause animals pain and suffering is up to debate but at the center of the issue of ethics. Why should humans have the right to end the lives of other animals just because we dominate them? The argument that I found most interesting, however, was Pollan’s evolutionary look at the issue. If man stopped eating meat than the many species that thrived in our meat producing industry may cease to exist. Domesticated animals rely on us to survive, thus their number one interest is that we still have a reason to take care of them. However, if there were no more pigs then there would be no more suffering pigs.

Another interesting way of thinking of the issue is to look at how many animals are killing in the growing and harvesting of crops. The countless animals that are killed in the plowing and tilling of fields and the animals that are killed through the use of pesticides, both directly and indirectly have to be taken into account. Some suggest that if your intent is to kill the fewest animals, the best diet may be the biggest animal possible, such as grass feed beef cattle.

Localism: The 150 mile challenge

Nowadays the food we eat comes from all over the world. While the worldly selection of your average supermarket means we have huge variety of chow choices, it also carries a great cost. We not only pay more for the food because of shipping costs, but the environmental effects of the fossil fuel burned in the shipping process also add to the costs. In “Miles to Go Before I Eat”, Mark Anderson explores an extreme solution to this problem; only eat food that is grown, produced, and sold within a 150 mile radius of your home.

This practice, known popularly as Localism, has obvious drawbacks and advantages. One of the main drawbacks is the huge change in diet that this practice entails. Chances are that you will have cut processed foods, wheat (that means everything made with flour), spices, salt, sugar, rice, coffee, tea, and most fruits out of your diet, just to name a few. You will also be on a constant quest around the countryside to find new local foods, which may actually use more fossil fuels than your new diet is saving. But that’s just my theory. The advantages of localism, however, are also clear. First of all, it prevents the problems discussed in the previous paragraph. Second, you will be helping out local farmers and your local economy. And third, your diet will probably be a lot healthier.

But is localism, even if the radius was expanded to say 300 miles, really a practical solution? I think that a better idea would just be to switch to a partially local diet. Anderson points out that even eating only one local meal a week could save a huge amount of oil. If more people started regularly shopping at their local farmers market it would be a much better solution than the one explored by Anderson. Because honestly the cost of shipping salt and spices is really not that significant. So what can be done to up the popularity of farmers markets and local foods?

The Virtues of Grass Farming

Today, the majority of our agricultural industry has been split into crop growing and animal raising. This means that the livestock owners are buying the agricultural products of another farm in order to feed their animals. This is very different from the traditional method of animal raising where farmers would feed their livestock from product they grew themselves. There still, however, exist some farms that practice this type of farming.

In the “All Flesh is Grass” chapter of The Omnivore’s Dilemna, Michael Pollan visits one of these farms in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. The Polyface Farm is owned and operated by Joel Salatin, a farmer who is committed to the old agrarian-pastorial ideal of grass farming. On 100 acres pasture in another 450 acres of forest, Salatin raises chicken, beef, turkeys, eggs, rabbits, pigs, tomatoes, sweet corn, and berries (Pollan 125). With relatively little machinery, Salatin uses his grasses to raise a large amount of animals in an altogether sustainable process. Every year his perennial grasses provide feed and hay for his animals, without having to be replanted, and his animals provide the constant nibbling and fertilization that is necessary to keep the grass healthy.

This simple yet elegant system served as the foundation for agriculture since man started farming. So what in the last century or two has caused humans to abandon this system? Is it because the old style agrarian system is just too expensive, uses to much space, or would be unable to meet the demands of our population? I would argue that that the higher costs of grass raising animals is what has driven us away from the system. But does it really have higher costs? In my opinion, the health and environmental problems that the current industrial meat industry causes end up far outweighing the additional production costs of the old-style agrarian system. The only problem is we do not have to pay for the costs till later, and our society has a hard time understanding anything but immediate costs.

A look at Industrial Meat

For my first entry I will be discussing “The Feed Lot” chapter from Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma and the industrial meat industry as a whole. In this chapter, Pollan follows the life 534, a beef steer that he has purchased, from its life as a young calf to its last months of life spent in the feedlot. Despite artificial insemination of 534’s mother, Pollan’s steer spent the first six months of its life grazing on prairie grasses with its mother just as cows have been traditionally raised throughout history. In the next eight months of 534’s life, which also turn out to be his last, he is shipped off to the feedlot and becomes a part of our modern meat industry. His feed is changed to corn, which will make 534 sick because cows are not evolved to eat corn. To keep the cows healthy, they are fed a cocktail of hormones and antibiotics. These drugs also protect the cow from the dangers of the feedlot environment. Not only do the cows spend all their days wallowing in their own filth, they are also kept in densely populated pens, which promotes disease. Pollan suggests that a large reason beef causes so many health problems is as a result of the combination of feeding cows corn, drugs, hormones, and the horrible conditions of the feedlot. The feedlot itself also causes major environmental problems because of the huge amounts of toxic waste that comes from the cows.

This raises the important question of what has driven the meat industry to this state? Pollan explains that corn is a major cause of this problem. Because of the tremendous overproduction of the government subsidized American corn industry, it is the cheapest feed available. The goal of our meat industry is to produce the most meat at the lowest price. Therefore, from an efficiency standpoint, corn is the logical solution. It is illogical, however, because feeding cows corn causes environmental problems and national health issues that all did not exist in the days when cows grazed on grass and meet was expensive. The meat industry has become a situation where all the actors have goals that result in a solution that is bad for everyone. The corn producers want to sell their corn, the meat industry wants to produce meat at the lowest price, and the consumer wants to buy food at the lowest price. In a discussion we had in class today, a classmate said that corn allows us to meet the meat demands of our population. I then suggested that maybe it is better if we do not meet our meat demands. To which several classmates replied that they would rather have meat. This exemplifies the overall situation because my classmates are unable to feel the negative effects of their decision, thus they make the logical decision to continue to demand meat. In my opinion, when these types of problems arise it is the job of the government to step in and create policies to advance a solution. Right now, however, we do not have a solution and we are paying the price. The question that we need to answer is what is the best course of action to solve this problem?