|
1.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF U.S. ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
Farmed animal production in the U.S.
is trending to much larger enterprises, according
to a new report released by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS).
(See also: http://tinyurl.com/cs3bmc
) Between 1987 and 2002, the median farm size, based
on annual sales, increased by 60% for those raising
chickens for meat, 100% for cattle-feeding operations,
240% for dairies, and 2,000% for pig farms. Recent
surveys indicate that this trend in farm structure
is continuing, due in large part to economies of scale.
According to the report, the structural
change has brought about increased productivity, lower
costs of production, and lower prices for consumers.
However, “industrialized livestock production
has external costs. High concentrations of animal
manure can lead to increased air and water pollution,
with adverse health and environmental consequences.
Concentrated livestock can also create odors that
offend neighbors and reduce property values. A heavy
reliance on antibiotics for growth promotion and for
disease prevention may spawn antibiotic-resistant
strains of bacteria, with human health risks. Changes
in farm structure are intertwined with these concerns
because larger operations concentrate manure more
and rely more heavily on growth promoting antibiotics
than smaller operations” (PDF link): http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB43/EIB43f.pdf
The report goes on to say that animal agriculture
is very competitive and little incentive may exist
for individual producers to take costly actions to
reduce the harmful effects of industrialization. However,
states ERS: “The evidence adduced so far suggests
that steps can be taken, at modest aggregate costs,
to limit the external costs associated with antibiotic
use in industrialized operations.” These steps
include sanitation measures and testing, to prevent
disease and promote growth.
See also: IMPACTS ON FURTHER GROWTH
OF THE NORTH AMERICAN PORK INDUSTRY: http://tinyurl.com/anmesn
or http://tinyurl.com/cnxqlz.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF U.S. LIVESTOCK
AGRICULTURE: SCALE, EFFICIENCY, AND RISKS
USDA Economic Research Service, James M. MacDonald
and William D. McBride, January 2009
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB43/
2.
PENDING FEDERAL REGULATIONS PUT ON HOLD
Almost immediately upon Barack Obama
becoming president of the U.S., a memorandum was sent
to all federal agencies directing them to stop all
pending regulations until they can be reviewed by
the new administration. The regulations affecting
farmed animals include ones pertaining to: country-of-origin
labeling (see: http://tinyurl.com/abw6uv
), the National Animal Identification initiative (see:
http://tinyurl.com/bxx3dt
), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (http://tinyurl.com/5ngt8r
), and several rules implementing new provisions in
the 2008 farm bill (see: http://tinyurl.com/cwa9st
). The memo’s implications for the Food and
Drug Administration's new guidance on genetically
engineered animals (see item #3)
and the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule
specifying when farmed animal facilities need to report
air emissions (see: http://tinyurl.com/a9qdbj
) was unclear. The memo can be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/avbam4.
See also: OBAMA FACES HURDLES IN REVERSING BUSH REGULATIONS:
http://tinyurl.com/86p8lk.
COOL, OTHER LAWS ON HOLD FOR OBAMA REVIEW
MeatingPlace, Tom Johnston, January 22, 2009
http://www.aamp.com/news/COOLonholdforObama.asp
USDA REGULATIONS BEING REVIEWED BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
Farm Futures, January 22, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/cjtfcy
COOL RULE, MANY OTHERS, ON HOLD AWAITING REVIEW BY
OBAMA TEAM
Feedstuffs, Sally Schuff, January 22, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/93g32n
3.
FDA GUIDANCE ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS
On January 15th, just before the Bush
Administration ended, the Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) issued a final guidance for industry on the
regulation of genetically engineered (GE) animals:
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/GEAnimals.htm
(see also item #2). FDA had released
the draft guidance in September and subsequently received
nearly 29,000 comments about it. Many of them expressed
concerns about animal welfare, and the vast majority
opposed genetic engineering of animals. Ethical concerns
were essentially dismissed by the FDA as being “largely
outside the scope of FDA's authority” but the
agency states that its “guidance will provide
a predictable science-based framework that will ensure
the safety and safe use of GE animals.” The
FDA notes that it also intends “to hold public
scientific advisory committee meetings prior to making
decisions on GE animal-related applications."
The agency’s summary of and response to the
comments are at: http://tinyurl.com/9l37n9.
“After all is said and done, the fact remains
that any move towards GE food animals will most probably
precede a monumental shift in what we now know as
farming and what we perceive as meat,” writes
Adam Anson, a reporter for a number of industry-oriented
websites. “The FDA says that under the draft
guidance, in those cases where the GE animal is intended
for food use, producers will have to demonstrate that
food from the GE animal is safe to eat,” he
points out, “However, at a time when the FDA
has inadequate resources to protect the food system
and is reeling under allegations of conflicts of interest,
has the issue of food safety been fully considered?”
Jaydee Hanson, of the non-profit Center for Food Safety,
contends: "This new proposal uses a secret approval
process wherein no one other than FDA reviewers can
see the data submitted before final approval…And,
unlike drugs which can be recalled because they are
labelled, FDA maintains that genetically engineered
animals should not be labelled."
FDA GUIDANCE ON GE ANIMALS UNVEILED --
FINALLY
Feedstuffs, January 19, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/ctvvop
THE FUTURE OF US LIVESTOCK IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED
The Poultry Site, January 17, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/avzum9
BRAVE NEW FARM: GE FOOD ANIMALS IN THE USA
The Poultry Site, Adam Anson, November 2008
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1235/brave-new-farm-ge-food-animals-in-the-usa
4.
EC ACCUSED OF IGNORING ITS OWN CLONING DIRECTIVE; JAPAN
Eurogroup for Animals, a coalition of
European animal protection organizations, has filed
a complaint of maladministration against the European
Commission (EC) with the European Ombudsman. Eurogroup
accuses the EC of ignoring its own legislation by
delaying a decision on the use of animal cloning for
food production. On January 13th, during its first
legislative session of 2009, the European Commissioners
again postponed submitting a proposal on cloning,
asserting that more scientific answers are needed
as is a debate with international trading partners.
“The Commission has failed to respect the EU
directive for the protection of farm animals, which
states that reproduction techniques which cause animals
to suffer cannot be used,” Eurogroup stated.
Eurogroup points to a Eurobarometer survey, conducted
in July, in which 58% of respondents indicated that
animal cloning for food production should never be
justified. Some 83% of surveyed Europeans said that
if food from the offspring of cloned animals does
become available, special labeling should be required
for it. A 2008 report by the European Food Safety
Authority generated increased concerns about cloning
in regard to animal health and welfare, and the European
Group of Ethics raised ethical concerns about animal
cloning. In September, the European Parliament voted
with 622 votes in favor of urging the Commission to
prohibit cloning of animals for food and any products
from cloned animals and their offspring. Eurogroup
announced it “will be calling on member states
to apply the directive for the protection of farm
animals and introduce national bans if the Commission
continues to do nothing."
Japan
"Foods derived from cloned cows and swine, and
from the offspring of clones, are as safe as food
from conventionally bred animals,” an expert
panel reported to Japan's Food Safety Commission (FSC)
on January 19th. A decision by the FSC on the safety
of food produced by cloning animals will take months
and several high-level meetings. If the Commission
decides that it is safe, it will likely generate great
criticism over the ethicality of such food. For example,
approximately 31% of cloned cows are either stillborn
or die soon after birth. Japan, the largest Asian
importer of beef, will become a significant market
for cloned animals if the FSC approves the technology.
THE EU IGNORES ITS OWN RULES ON ANIMALS
New Europe for Animals, Sonja Van Tichelen (commentary),
January 19, 2009
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/92022.php
EUROPEAN COMMISSION GUILTY OF IGNORING ITS OWN LEGISLATION
Farming UK, January 14, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/8xvee5
CLONED PIGS MIGHT FLY, AS JAPAN CONSIDERS ALLOWING
CLONED MEAT ON TO THE MARKET
Food Business Review, Matthew Jones, January 22, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/b2gjog
JAPAN STUDY GROUP SAYS CLONED ANIMALS SAFE FOR FOOD
Reuters, Risa Maeda with Edwina Gibbs, January 20,
2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE50J1SV20090120
5. U.K. CRITICIZED FOR E.U. CHICKEN WELFARE RULES
"From now on, we will be looking
at what really matters, which is the overall welfare
of the bird itself,” declared Jane Kennedy,
the U.K. Minister for Farming and the Environment,
in announcing plans to implement new welfare rules
for chickens raised for meat (see: http://tinyurl.com/d9jvwg
). The rules, approved in 2007 (see: http://tinyurl.com/asyg8p
), will for the first time provide a mandatory baseline
for all European Union (EU) producers. They include
maximum stocking densities, standards for temperature,
humidity and lighting, and limits on ammonia and carbon
dioxide. The rules will apply to all operations with
more than 500 birds excluding those that are solely
intended for reproduction, hatcheries, and extensive
indoor, free-range or organic production. The rules
also address monitoring slaughter facilities. Public
comments are being accepted through April 20th and
the rules are to be implemented in June 2010.
Acknowledging that the rules will improve
typical practices in some EU countries, the RSPCA
contends they will do little to improve conditions
for chickens in Britain. Industry estimates that about
85% of chickens raised for meat in England are kept
in conditions comparable to those required by the
new rules (and see: http://tinyurl.com/derv4v
). Defra, the U.K. environment department, issued
a document stating that it would not try to strengthen
welfare rules for U.K. chickens (see also: http://tinyurl.com/ckahys
).
NEW E.U. RULE ADDRESSES WELFARE OF CHICKENS
Meat & Poultry, Bryan Salvage, January 26, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/ceybyh
RSPCA CONDEMNS NEW WELFARE RULES FOR BROILER CHICKENS
Guardian, James Meikle, January 26, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/dfs7eb
6.
BRITISH PIG MEAT FROM POLISH PIGS: "HORRIFYING" DISCOVERIES
“[Y]ou could mistake it for a
prisoner-of-war camp…The stench is unbelievable
and the behaviour of many of the pigs distressing.
Some limp forlornly in tight circles. Many frantically
chew the bars of their cages with mucus dribbling
from their mouths. In one pen, two pigs are fighting.”
In this detailed article, journalist Danny Penman
relates his quest to find the source of a popular
pig meat product sold in Britain. It led him to pigs
being raised in Poland by Smithfield, “an American
food conglomerate that is the largest pig meat producer
in the world” (see: http://tinyurl.com/5ff7jd
). Penman continues: “Perhaps most horrifyingly
of all…I saw a huge industrial bin piled high
with the rotting bodies of dozens of piglets. Other
decomposing piglets lay scattered around the bin.
Some had been feasted upon by wildlife.”
Penman says the piles are “an indication of
the standards of animal welfare on some Polish farms.”
Mortality on that farm was 12.8%, about 50% higher
than on a comparable British farm. Confronted, the
company issued Penman a legal notice stating that:
“All Smithfield farms have a secured disposal
container for dead pigs and the dead are placed in
them daily. Scores of pigs are not left on the ground
to rot. The disposal and collection process avoids
carcasses lying on the ground for more than a day.”
It also asserted that: “The farms and the records
are the subject of review by both local and regional
official state registered veterinary inspectors on
a regular basis.”
Penman blames Britain’s 60% importation
rate of pig meat on welfare laws that only apply to
the U.K. “Ten years ago our Government mercifully
outlawed some of the worst aspects of factory pig
farming,” he writes, after which “the
EU and other European institutions soon started pouring
subsidies into Poland and Romania to create the type
of industrial pig farming now banned in the UK.”
Smithfield controls at least 16 giant pig facilities
in Poland and four enormous slaughterhouses and processing
plants. The farms receive about $1 million a year
in E.U. subsidies. See also: http://tinyurl.com/cd9sqx.
The percentage of British people highlighting
animal welfare as a driving factor in their food consumption
decisions has risen from 8% in 2005 to 20% in 2009,
according to international food and grocery expert
IGD: http://tinyurl.com/brxaum.
The British Farm ministry is pushing the European
Union for clearer country-of-origin labeling to tell
where an animal was born, reared and slaughtered:
http://tinyurl.com/czv3m2.
THE TRUTH ABOUT 'BRITISH' PORK... THAT
COMES ALL THE WAY FROM A POLISH FACTORY FARM
Daily Mail, Danny Penman, January 17, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/7afdn4
7.
GERMANS, U.K. HOSPITALS URGED TO CUT BACK ON MEAT
Meat production accounts for nearly
a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, according
to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture
Organisation (see: http://tinyurl.com/26atm7
). Last year, Rajendra Pachauri, the United Nations
climate chief, said that having a meat-free day every
week was the biggest single contribution people could
make to reduce climate change in their personal lives.
Now Germany's federal environment agency, UBA,
has strongly advised people to eat meat only on special
occasions and to routinely adhere to a more Mediterranean-style
diet: (see: http://tinyurl.com/cyxeqf
). Although meat consumption has dropped significantly
in Germany since 1991 and, according to VeBu,
Germany’s vegetarian association, the number
of vegetarians has grown from 0.4% in 1983 to 10%
today, Germans are still among the highest meat consumers
in Europe.
Food consumed in the U.K. is the source
of nearly a fifth of the country’s emissions,
with meat and dairy products accounting for a little
over half of it, according to the Food
Climate Research Network. The Guardian newspaper
notes: “The government estimates that, kilo-for-kilo,
compared with bread, emissions linked to poultry farming
are more than four times as high, to pork six times
as high, and to beef and lamb 16 times. Besides this,
tropical forest is cleared to allow feed-crops, also
a source of emissions.” As part of the U.K.’s
National
Health Service (NHS) strategy to cut global warming
emissions, the organization is recommending that hospitals
offer fewer meat and dairy products. (NHS is “the
world’s largest publicly funded health service.”)
Its strategy document, entitled Saving Carbon, Improving
Health, states: "Unless we all take effective
action now, millions of people around the world will
suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding
as the climate changes."
See also HOW MARK BITTMAN SAVED THE
WORLD AND LOST HIS BELLY: http://tinyurl.com/bwk85c.
SCHNITZEL OFF THE MENU AS GERMANS ARE
TOLD TO CUT DOWN ON EATING MEAT
The Guardian, Kate Connolly, January 23, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/23/german-diet-meat-environment
HOSPITALS WILL TAKE MEAT OFF MENUS IN BID TO CUT
CARBON
The Guardian, Juliette Jowit, January 26, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jan/26/hospitals-nhs-meat-carbon
8.
HOW MANY VEGETARIAN KIDS?
Recently, the Center for Disease Control
and Prevention published a report in which it was
estimated that one in 200 U.S. children are vegetarian:
http://tinyurl.com/bgdfpk.
The estimate was based on responses to a 2007 National
Health Interview Survey (PDF link: http://tinyurl.com/938t8f
). However, the two relevant survey questions only
included health or weight reasons for being vegetarian.
Other popular reasons, such as religion, ethics or
environmental concerns, were not mentioned. Factoring
these in could greatly boost the number of vegetarian
children. [It should also be noted, though, that one
of the questions asked about a dietary time period
as short as two weeks.] See also: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/cdcsurvey0109.
ONE IN 200 KIDS ARE VEGETARIAN? WRONG!
The PETA Files, Liz Graffeo, January 20, 2009
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/01/one_in_200_kids.php
|
![[missing header image]](/images/newsletter_ico.jpg)