Greg Henderson, Editor, Associate Publisher, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 10/13/2011
The divide between a utopian vision of food production and the realities of modern, large-scale agriculture grew ever wider this week as Worldwatch Institute released a report on global meat production and consumption. Offering little more than a rehash of unsubstantiated claims regarding livestock production, Worldwatch fails to add serious discussion to the debate about food production, and their actions don’t serve the world’s population that are poor and hungry.
“Much of the vigorous growth in meat production is due to the rise of industrial animal agriculture, factory farming,” said Worldwatch’s Danielle Nierenberg, senior researcher and director of Nourishing the Planet. “Factory farms pollute the environment through the heavy use of inputs such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers used for feed production.”
Worldwatch says meat production worldwide has tripled over the last four decades and increased 20 percent in just the last 10 years. Of course, Worldwatch sees that as a bad thing, not progress toward feeding hungry people.
“Livestock provide 40 percent of the value of the world’s agricultural output and support the livelihood and food security of nearly 1 billion people, according to the FAO (the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization),” says Tom Field, executive director of producer education for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
And Washington State University assistant professor of dairy science Judith Capper says we shouldn’t assume that greater livestock production also increases environmental impacts. “Global meat consumption has increased, yet improvements in efficiency in developed countries have led to a reduction in both resource use and waste output (including greenhouse gases) over the past century. It is a misnomer to assume that more extensive or historical systems have lower environmental impacts.”
Worldwatch’s report attacked modern food animal production in various ways. For instance, the report says, “Dirty, crowded conditions on factory farms can propagate sickness and disease among the animals, including swine influenza (H1N1), avian influenza (H5N1), foot-and-mouth disease, and mad-cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy). These diseases not only translate into enormous economic losses each year----the United Kingdom alone spent 18 to 25 billion dollars in a three-year period to combat foot-and-mouth disease----but they also lead to human infections.”
Pretty scary stuff, especially to the vast majority of Americans who have no understanding of livestock production or their diseases. But to Field and Professor Capper, it’s just hogwash.
“The link between the listed animal diseases and ‘factory farming’ is nonsensical,” Capper says. “Epidemiological evidence showed that avian influenza was spread by small backyard chicken flocks that were not confined – no outbreaks occurred in large-scale modern facilities with biosecurity measures in place. The release wording implying a link between ‘dirty’ and ‘factory farms’ is implicit but is not borne out by science. The UK spent a large amount of money on foot and mouth disease because a huge outbreak occurred. This was entirely unrelated to ‘factory farms’ or ‘dirty conditions’ and was instead a result of infection failing to be reported and swine being transported to market.”
Worldwatch, however, stops short of calling for an end to eating meat and dairy products. They just believe, “Eating organic, pasture-raised livestock can alleviate chronic health problems and improve the environment.”
Further, the report claims, “Grass-fed beef contains less fat and more nutrients than its factory-farmed counterpart and reduces the risk of disease and exposure to toxic chemicals. Well-managed pasture systems can improve carbon sequestration, reducing the impact of livestock on the planet. And the use of fewer energy-intensive inputs conserves soil, reduces pollution and erosion, and preserves biodiversity. Pastoral farming systems, especially in developing countries, improve food security and sustain the livelihoods of millions of farmers worldwide," said Nierenberg. "Eating less meat and supporting pastoralist communities at every level is essential to combat the destructive trend of factory farms."
However, Capper says the “majority of research on the human health effects of eating meat and milk from pasture-raised livestock has shown no beneficial effect. Even when specific nutrients (e.g.omega-3 fatty acids) have been shown to increase in plasma after consuming grass-fed meat or dairy, these have not translated into meaningful human health indices. Studies comparing the effect of consuming meat from corn-fed vs. grass-fed steers have shown beneficial effects of corn-feeding on oleic acid (related to diabetes and metabolic syndrome).”
It’s also misleading for the Worldwatch report to imply that cattle in the U.S. are not already using sustainable grazing systems.
“Ninety-seven percent of the farms and ranches in the United States are family owned, and the beef breeding herd is pastoral,” says Field. “The stocker sector is pastoral, and the feedlot sector provides a highly sustainable and efficient management protocol that is designed around good nutrition and health for cattle while reducing GHGs and providing a more time and resource effective approach to producing a high quality protein source for the world’s consumers.”
Next in Part II: Worldwatch repeats wild, unscientific claims about antibiotics in livestock production. Field and Capper respond: “Agenda-driven, non-science-based banning of antibiotics would ultimately harm animal health and animal welfare, and food safety and food security,” Field says.
Comments (5) Leave a comment