If you haven’t read this article written by Jeff Tietz for Rolling Stone magazine, I highly suggest reading it. The piece presents the pork industry through the business of Smithfield Foods, which is the largest pork producer in America. The article suggests that one of every four pigs in America is slaughtered by this company. There’s a lot of familiar ground covered for those who know about industrial food production, such as the living conditions of the pigs, unsanitary excrement levels, and animal antibiotic consumption. The article paints a bleak picture, but manages to do so while giving the reader a fair amount of readable statistics. There’s also a historical portion that tells of the story of Joseph Luter III, the chairman of Smithfield Foods. It’s interesting to read the economic implications of the growth of such a large company. The keyword of the entire article is pollution. This specific company (and others like it) exposes nearby people and land to a copious amount of pollution. One statistic relayed is that Smithfield’s largest processing plant “dumps more toxic waste into the nation’s water each year than all but three other industrial facilities in America.” Yikes.
Part of what I like about this writing is its focus on the impact on humanity. Oftentimes these types of stories are sad stories only from the perspective of the animal (which is still true), but doesn’t measure the ways that businesses like Smithfield Foods are adversely influencing human lives. Tietz focuses on the ways that pollution generated on the farms sickens people and keeps them from leading normal lives. Fish who used to live in the areas waterways are now dead, ending the employment of countless local fishermen. Workers in the hog plants die while becoming overwhelmed with the toxic fumes they breathe. People living in the area have contaminated drinking and bath water. The list goes on.
I’ve never been the type of vegetarian who gets angry with omnivores. But articles like this one give me reason to keep up my chosen eating habits. Our current methods of food production are not sustainable. When millions of gallons of pig shit per year are dumped into our rivers, that is NOT sustainable. When pigs are pumped full of drugs that breed antibiotic resistant germs that make people sick, that is NOT sustainable. And on and on. Okay, my rant is over. Read the article, it’s full of information that people should know.
My friend Cindy left me a few comments on this post over on Facebook, so I thought I’d paste them over here so that everyone who reads my summary of the Rolling Stone article could see her thoughts as well. She has studied the issue academically, and I appreciate her perspective. What follows are her thoughts and then my responses to her:
__________________________
interesting note to read esp since i’ll be a veterinarian keeping the animals we eat healthy and with an undergrad degree in animal sciences (ie. how to produce animals we eat).
i respect people who choose to be vegetarians, but have found very few who have both sides of the story. three things that stuck out to me that i’d like to just comment on…
1. where did the statistics come from about what smithfield foods is doing and what exactly did the stats refer to?
2. i’m also skeptical about the picture painted about how awful smithfield is to the environment. just regarding the manure management alone… i had a whole class on current issues of animal agriculture and had an EPA agent come and talk to us about the laws that animal facilities had to follow and guidelines for waste management, etc. with a company as large as Smithfield foods, i’d imagine the EPA would be on them in a flash if they were dumping straight into the streams. plus, most places sell the pig crap as biological fertilizer that all the organic-eating folk want their plants grown with. there are places (like Buckeye egg company) that have been shut down because of bad management and bad environmental stewardship. i don’t know how smithfield foods would fall through the cracks.
3. this is one i’m probably most passionate about…Antibiotic resistance. there have been studies that have shown that antibiotic resistance is more attributed to human medicine than to animal agriculture mostly due to shear volume that is used in animal agriculture compared to human medicine. in addition most antibiotics used in animals aren’t allowed to be used in human medicine and vice versa. in europe they have limited the antibiotics that can be given to animals and the problems w/ antibiotic resistnace have continued to escalate because of dr’s that perscribe antibiotics for people who don’t really need them or because of patients that don’t take them as directed.
antibiotics given at a low dose to agriculture animals have also been shown to improve feed conversion (less feed costs), improve animal health (which decreases need of therapeutic antibiotics), and decreases Phosphorous in the feces which is one of the main pollutants esp in swine feces.
i write all this respectfully….i just want you to know that. i just am very passionate about animal agriculture. i do agree there are some things that need fixed, but unfortunately economics and the business world ties alot of hands. it’s not that animal producers are big mean men that want to steal your money, hurt their animals, and poison our land…..unless we’re willing to pay more for the things we buy (which most people aren’t) things aren’t going to get better.
to commend many producers….people (such as the Ohio Pork Association) are increasingly encouraging producers to improve public perception of the food supply production and to keep environmental and animal issues in the forefront of their business practices.
so there is my two cents….or i guess maybe more like 50 cents
__________________________
Cindy,
Of all the people I know you’re the most educated on this particular issue, so I’m extremely interested to hear what you have to say. It would be nice at some point to have this conversation over the phone or in person. For the time being, here are my responses to your thoughts:
1. As a person who has taken his fair share of statistics courses, and who knows how stats can be easily manipulated and presented to the public, I think you have a point here. When you have particular numbers attached to certain viewpoints, they should be questioned. What I don’t think CAN be questioned is a statement of fact. For instance, it is a fact that a large percentage of the grain and corn grown in this country is used to raise animals, and that this method of producing food is much less efficient than eating the grain or corn directly. So rather than focusing on disputable statistics, I’d rather ask WHY certain facts ARE facts. I like to ask questions like, “Why is so much meat produced in America?”, or “Why don’t we generally eat in a more efficient manner?” These facts exist because a history has produced them. They didn’t necessarily HAVE to be this way. So I generally think it’s good to think about how we’ve come to this point in history, and to ask whether we should attempt to change.
2. I’m glad that you have a favorable picture of the EPA and their ability to regulate the industry, but I’m unfortunately much more jaded on this subject. When the largest producer of pork in the nation makes billions of dollars a year, and helps drive the economy, they will never be shut down. At least not quickly. Corporations with such a large quantity of monetary power are able to bend the rules to their liking (in my experience). And even if I thought that the EPA was acting perfectly, there would still be other issues. For one, the amount of red tape necessary to shut down a terrible place is tremendous. In some cases it’s difficult for the EPA to act according to their intended purpose. Also, it’s hard to quantify the number of those “normal” Americans who are effected by places like Smithfield (and as far as I know the EPA can do nothing to help). The elderly couple who is downwind from the stench of pig waste and decay is quite stuck. Smithfield would probably state that if they were unhappy, they could move away. But it obviously isn’t that easy. The same goes for folks who fish for a living and have been negatively (and undeniably) effected by the presence of such a large animal production plant.
3. The area of animal medicine, especially antibiotics, is one that I could learn a LOT from you about. I imagine that when most people think about feeding antibiotics to animals they think about diseases like Mad Cow Disease, which is a potentially fatal disease that is capable of crossing species into the human population. I think that people tend to fear something like a bovine super-germ that somehow manages to jump over to us. Also, I’d like to read the studies that you’re referring to. If you’re able, could you let me know what they are? And you are absolutely correct that incorrect human consumption of antibiotics is more worrisome. But just because there exists a reality that is MORE worrisome than feeding antibiotics to animals does not mean we shouldn’t question the practice. Anyway, when I think about this particular issue I focus much less on the thought of a super-germ emerging from the pig waste (or whatever), but on the question, “Why do we feed animals antibiotics in the first place?” I think the answer is rather short: to increase production. Our economy rewards people who produce high quality goods in a time frame that meets demand. Our current (and relatively new) way of producing animals is to place them in large quantities together in factory farms. When there are literally thousands of animals huddled together into a very small space, disease is a serious cause for concern. Without antibiotics, animals growing under these conditions would be health compromised. Which means that they couldn’t be sold. Which means that the company would not make money. And so on. So our practice for the past several decades has been to create methods through which large quantities of animals can be grown in a relatively small space (for the sake of efficiency). And antibiotics are part of this plan.
Cindy, the business world and economics ties hands ONLY BECAUSE THE CONSUMER ALLOWS IT. Economics is not an uncontrollable force. If the consumer demands a product that isn’t being offered then a company will emerge that provides that product. My reason for eating only local meat grown on small(er) farms (within the Pittsburgh region) is an attempt to use my economic power to change the course of food production. Obviously, as you say, the price is higher. But as far my personal ethical standards are concerned it’s worth it. Animal producers are most definitely people who want our money (though, as you say, they don’t want to steal it). Without it they have no business. The way in which they produce animals continues because we allow it. It doesn’t have to be this way. And it is definitely my belief that there are better options which exist (that are better for human rights, animals rights, and the environment).
Oh how I miss you Ian Luke
And I’m thankful for once speaking to someone who has a brain and enough composure to listen and counter with real thoughts. There are too many people that are driven only by emotion on this topic (and others….)
I agree with you on some of what you have said…and we should talk about this more in person. I’m most certainly not an expert on any of this, but the more I become immersed in the animal production world, the more I learn.
I whole heartedly agree that there are many things that need done better…and they are on their way to being done better. At Ohio State we have this thing called the “Ecological Paradigm” that the College of Food, Ag, and Environmental Sciences pride themselves on. It combines Production Efficiency, Environmental Compatibility, Social Responsibility, and Economic Viability all equally. Within the college, all research, education programs, and outreach are built around these concepts and how we can contribute to a healthy (not healthy nutritional, but healthy for every aspect involved) production of not only food animals, but also crops. The push is there for producers to consider the consumer and their desires for “wholesome” food and they are starting to rise to meet the demands–that is how change will happen, you are right. Unfortunately, it’ll just take time. The shift to large-scale production happened for many reasons (consumer wanting cheap food with the same quality each time combined wiith the suburban development of our precious agricultural land) and the reversal will be, as you said, driven by the producer responding to the changed desires.
I’ll see what I can do about getting those research journals, but they were from a seminar I sat in on three years ago, but as I continue my education I’m positive I’ll run into more research.
Just remember less than 2% of our population produces the food (both animal and crops) for our country in addition to many foreign markets. They’re doing what they can. They’re not out there to ruin the world we live in.
Cindy, thank you for your words. I really have a lot to learn from people like you. I really resonate with your last paragraph. It is absolutely AMAZING that 2% of our population produces the food (both animal and crops) for our country in addition to many foreign markets. I’d like to learn and do what I can for these people. If you have any practical suggestions please (PLEASE!) let me know.
I read this article and thought you might find it interesting: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html