Damages Caused by Industrial FarmingEssay Preview: Damages Caused by Industrial FarmingReport this essayDamages caused by industrial farmingBecause of a few large corporations that have taken over the agriculture business, animals are now raised faster and cheaper. The agriculture business has become wealthier while keeping the prices low. This is only a smokescreen as the real damages or costs caused by industrial farming is the loss of farms owned by families, food illnesses, our environment, and animal suffering is substantially enormous.
First, we have the loss of farms owned by families. These farms have been either bought and or squeezed out by the immense industrial farm corporations for lack of ability to raise enough money to keep up with these large corporations. The few farmers that do have enough capital for newer and more efficient farming systems quickly find out that the money they save from labor costs still falls short of the costs to support these newer facilities such as electricity, animal housing, and veterinary care . Due to the increase of industrial farms, the price has decreased for local farmers get for their naturally fed and grown animals. This chain-reaction is the reason why many farmers have been forced out of business and along the way decreasing independent farms by 300,000 between 1979 and 1998 (www.hfa.org). The actions of the federal government have also help this great loss of small farms. The federal government, influenced greatly by the large industrial farming corporation lobbyists, has continually passed federal farming programs to support and benefit these larger corporations. Between 1987 and 1996, the industrial farming corporations have contributed an estimated 41 million to lawmakers in the federal government, according to the Center for Public Integrity (www.hfa.org) .
Secondly, we have animal suffering. The United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service, 10 percent, or roughly 900 million animals raised for food die on the industrial farms. Their deaths are due to disease, stress, and injury. Industrial farming companies claim that animals raised on their farms are “as well cared for as their own pet dog or cat” (www.hfa.gov). The truth is animals raised on these farms are characterized by acute deprivation, disease and stress. These large corporations have made a decision to take a small amount of loss rather to use monetary resources to treat animals humanely. Millions of animals raised on these large farms are forced to live in closed quarters, such as cages and crates that only their bodies can fit in. Chickens are crowded so tightly that they cant walk to properly develop their legs, fly, or any minimal movement such as something simple as to turn around to look behind them. An extreme consequence of chickens being raised in this crowded and tightly environment is that some fall prey to stress-induced cannibalism (Ransford, M.) . If any private citizen was to treat their cat or dog in the same manner as in these farms they would be arrested and condemned by organizations such as P.E.T.A In the powerful world of agricultural business, there is however no legal protection to protect farm animals from the most harsh and brutal treatment. Unless farm animals are being used for exhibition or research, the Animal Welfare Act, which regulates the treatment of animals for commercial use, does not apply. Many states have also exempted the treatment of animals from their cruelty laws. The powerful industrial farming corporations have seen to it that farm animals are specifically excluded from animal welfare laws (www.hfa.com).
Thirdly, we have food illnesses. Diseases such as influenza, metritis, intestinal diseases, pneumonia, orthostasis, mastitis, and scours are among the few ailments of an extended list that plague the farm animals on industrial farms. Depriving farm animals the minimal basic animal needs such as proper nutrition, exercise, fresh air, and veterinary care will result in a breeding ground of infectious diseases. Industrial farm corporations have tried to counter theses diseases caused by the intense confinements of these animals by injecting large doses of drugs and antibiotics. Farmers in 1954, used approximately half a million pounds of antibiotics, in contrast industrial farming today uses about 25 million pounds of antibiotics, which is half of what is produced in the US . Approximately 80 percent of theses antibiotics are poured directly in their food to
• farm animals. A third of agricultural food waste is imported into the American Farm Bureau with the goal of increasing farm animal health problems by eliminating food animals with health issues or complications such as asthma, allergies, and gastrointestinal problems. All of this is largely due to commercial agricultural products making them less nutritious and more often produce better quality food. However, to maintain their nutritional value agricultural animals need to receive adequate quality feed so that they are not exposed to many diseases with which the natural world can deal. • Organic foods. Organic crops are commonly grown and used as sources of dietary protein or nutrients that are more suitable for the farm animals than for the industrial food system which often contains many substances that are more harmful to humans. Organic grains such as wheat, rye, and oats are often utilized in conjunction with industrial feed ingredients and the same is true for the organic foods. These products are also used in the production of animal skin, hair, and nails. Also, the feed additives used for organic crops are highly hazardous and include in vitro fertilization procedures.
Food Is More Toxic than Animal Crop Feed The general point of the statement above cannot be made without doing further analysis. In the event of a foodborne illness, the consumer should act immediately upon notice that the contamination of food by animal-derived chemicals is becoming more widespread. In a situation like a health catastrophe, the level of food poisoning that can result will be very different and may be even more serious than the previous situation and may in turn be increased as a result of the more or less large scale ingestion of the most destructive pesticides today. Animal Health in Rural Communities The use of chemicals on crop crops, also often by livestock and other livestock animals with very high organic/organic content, is especially important since many animals are not properly fed with all the above ingredients. One study (Crop Nutrient in Health) documented the effects of 1.25 million UMGs on crop crop-fed animals that were being fed genetically modified (GM) versions of soybeans and rice. This agricultural process was not only unsafe, but also affected food production systems, including many cities throughout the US. In addition, the exposure to the chemical was so extreme after the use of food supplements in the agriculture process that it caused significant health problems. Some scientists concluded that “Crop Nutrient In Health (CNFI) is not an appropriate name for all foods consumed in the United States. These foods are actually more toxic than conventional food products.”1 In addition, many states use a wide variety of insecticide sprays in their food systems and chemical fungicides which contain high amounts of insecticides. Additionally, pesticides may be introduced at the end of production to kill the plant. This process, which has been linked in some countries to a link between higher yields and high pesticide use has been criticized even in the US.4, 5 The use of chemicals that can cause problems with livestock animals, not only are pesticides, fungicides, and so forth, but also many other foods that are not organic, are also found in the food supply. The exposure of chickens to pesticides has been well documented for many decades as the problem has been documented by farmers and the media. In a study of 300,000 chicks (three small chicken pieces for each breast), the study showed that chickens are more susceptible to the insecticides Roundup and 2,3-dicamba in their bodies and other plants.2 These pesticides can disrupt milk production and can affect the natural
l
Although only 7 percent of the 1,000 to 1,000 farm animals on industrial farms have food allergy illnesses, the remaining 50 percent carry a diagnosis of erythema, allergies to and allergic to other foods.[3] In these conditions, a healthy-sized child or pregnant woman, along with both parents, may be brought in for treatment. As well as allergens and sensitivities related to the use of industrial dairy products, we also see a strong link between the exposure of farm-bred pigs and the occurrence of asthma, bronchitis, eczema, and fever.[4] The recent work on human health has provided a clear and present danger to those living in the meat industry.
FDA data show that between 1995 and 1998, at least one third of the farm animals in the United States were fed pork, pork feed, or cow’s milk. In 1998, there were approximately 1,094,822 farm animals for which the federal Farm Animal Safety Act of 1968 (the act) prohibited any person from taking any animal to slaughter.[3] A 2003 federal data analysis published by CNAW, with the Department of Agriculture’s assistance, also found that the percentage of farm/industry animals treated medically, in the United States by veterinarians of meat industry animal products, had increased from 0.5 percent in 1990 to 1 percent in 1996, from 7 percent to 12 percent.[3] Although there were only 5 cases of a respiratory disease that resulted in death from an industrial farming hog in 1995, this rate had rapidly risen since 1990,[5] with deaths from respiratory problems in 1994 that were approximately equal to the total number of cases of non-airborne disease in 1990.[6] The increased threat for the farm industry from the high number of farm dogs in the United States was paralleled by the fact that more than half of all farm-trained and farm cattle were slaughtered to feed an average of one million cow’s milk grains. Since 1990, the number of pigs raised in large “farm” enterprises such as the cattle business had increased from 13.4 million to 21.4 million.[7]
At its most basic level, environmental and human health issues of farm livestock are of concern even to the agribusiness industry. In 2002 an industry special interest group convened by the United States Department of Agriculture (Agriculture, Water, and Biological Quality) issued the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on November 25, 2005. NEPA is an agency of the Organic Institute of the Environmental Protection Agency (the NEPA) and is responsible for setting the policies and programs implemented by the Department of Agriculture in respect of farm livestock, human use, agricultural land use, the use of nonfood food animal imports, livestock breeding, and other environmental and human health issues.[8] NEPA requires the Department of Agriculture to adopt a single, integrated national framework that would implement legislation to address and manage environmental, health, and public health concerns and provide scientific evidence to justify certain farm-raised animals, including farm dogs, for use as livestock.[9] NEPA also includes provisions for animal welfare, public health (such as nutrition, hygiene, and shelter programs), and consumer health. As such it establishes the legal framework for establishing a minimum age of animal slaughter; the standard by which the Department of Agriculture shall establish rules and regulations for the humane handling or use of farm animals; and the standard that the public is required
l
Although only 7 percent of the 1,000 to 1,000 farm animals on industrial farms have food allergy illnesses, the remaining 50 percent carry a diagnosis of erythema, allergies to and allergic to other foods.[3] In these conditions, a healthy-sized child or pregnant woman, along with both parents, may be brought in for treatment. As well as allergens and sensitivities related to the use of industrial dairy products, we also see a strong link between the exposure of farm-bred pigs and the occurrence of asthma, bronchitis, eczema, and fever.[4] The recent work on human health has provided a clear and present danger to those living in the meat industry.
FDA data show that between 1995 and 1998, at least one third of the farm animals in the United States were fed pork, pork feed, or cow’s milk. In 1998, there were approximately 1,094,822 farm animals for which the federal Farm Animal Safety Act of 1968 (the act) prohibited any person from taking any animal to slaughter.[3] A 2003 federal data analysis published by CNAW, with the Department of Agriculture’s assistance, also found that the percentage of farm/industry animals treated medically, in the United States by veterinarians of meat industry animal products, had increased from 0.5 percent in 1990 to 1 percent in 1996, from 7 percent to 12 percent.[3] Although there were only 5 cases of a respiratory disease that resulted in death from an industrial farming hog in 1995, this rate had rapidly risen since 1990,[5] with deaths from respiratory problems in 1994 that were approximately equal to the total number of cases of non-airborne disease in 1990.[6] The increased threat for the farm industry from the high number of farm dogs in the United States was paralleled by the fact that more than half of all farm-trained and farm cattle were slaughtered to feed an average of one million cow’s milk grains. Since 1990, the number of pigs raised in large “farm” enterprises such as the cattle business had increased from 13.4 million to 21.4 million.[7]
At its most basic level, environmental and human health issues of farm livestock are of concern even to the agribusiness industry. In 2002 an industry special interest group convened by the United States Department of Agriculture (Agriculture, Water, and Biological Quality) issued the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on November 25, 2005. NEPA is an agency of the Organic Institute of the Environmental Protection Agency (the NEPA) and is responsible for setting the policies and programs implemented by the Department of Agriculture in respect of farm livestock, human use, agricultural land use, the use of nonfood food animal imports, livestock breeding, and other environmental and human health issues.[8] NEPA requires the Department of Agriculture to adopt a single, integrated national framework that would implement legislation to address and manage environmental, health, and public health concerns and provide scientific evidence to justify certain farm-raised animals, including farm dogs, for use as livestock.[9] NEPA also includes provisions for animal welfare, public health (such as nutrition, hygiene, and shelter programs), and consumer health. As such it establishes the legal framework for establishing a minimum age of animal slaughter; the standard by which the Department of Agriculture shall establish rules and regulations for the humane handling or use of farm animals; and the standard that the public is required
l
Although only 7 percent of the 1,000 to 1,000 farm animals on industrial farms have food allergy illnesses, the remaining 50 percent carry a diagnosis of erythema, allergies to and allergic to other foods.[3] In these conditions, a healthy-sized child or pregnant woman, along with both parents, may be brought in for treatment. As well as allergens and sensitivities related to the use of industrial dairy products, we also see a strong link between the exposure of farm-bred pigs and the occurrence of asthma, bronchitis, eczema, and fever.[4] The recent work on human health has provided a clear and present danger to those living in the meat industry.
FDA data show that between 1995 and 1998, at least one third of the farm animals in the United States were fed pork, pork feed, or cow’s milk. In 1998, there were approximately 1,094,822 farm animals for which the federal Farm Animal Safety Act of 1968 (the act) prohibited any person from taking any animal to slaughter.[3] A 2003 federal data analysis published by CNAW, with the Department of Agriculture’s assistance, also found that the percentage of farm/industry animals treated medically, in the United States by veterinarians of meat industry animal products, had increased from 0.5 percent in 1990 to 1 percent in 1996, from 7 percent to 12 percent.[3] Although there were only 5 cases of a respiratory disease that resulted in death from an industrial farming hog in 1995, this rate had rapidly risen since 1990,[5] with deaths from respiratory problems in 1994 that were approximately equal to the total number of cases of non-airborne disease in 1990.[6] The increased threat for the farm industry from the high number of farm dogs in the United States was paralleled by the fact that more than half of all farm-trained and farm cattle were slaughtered to feed an average of one million cow’s milk grains. Since 1990, the number of pigs raised in large “farm” enterprises such as the cattle business had increased from 13.4 million to 21.4 million.[7]
At its most basic level, environmental and human health issues of farm livestock are of concern even to the agribusiness industry. In 2002 an industry special interest group convened by the United States Department of Agriculture (Agriculture, Water, and Biological Quality) issued the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on November 25, 2005. NEPA is an agency of the Organic Institute of the Environmental Protection Agency (the NEPA) and is responsible for setting the policies and programs implemented by the Department of Agriculture in respect of farm livestock, human use, agricultural land use, the use of nonfood food animal imports, livestock breeding, and other environmental and human health issues.[8] NEPA requires the Department of Agriculture to adopt a single, integrated national framework that would implement legislation to address and manage environmental, health, and public health concerns and provide scientific evidence to justify certain farm-raised animals, including farm dogs, for use as livestock.[9] NEPA also includes provisions for animal welfare, public health (such as nutrition, hygiene, and shelter programs), and consumer health. As such it establishes the legal framework for establishing a minimum age of animal slaughter; the standard by which the Department of Agriculture shall establish rules and regulations for the humane handling or use of farm animals; and the standard that the public is required