 Politicians
and government officials are fond of saying the U.S. has the
safest food supply in the world, thanks to the rules and
regulations that govern the production, processing and
distribution of food. But as the methods of raising animals for
food have changed, our laws have not necessarily kept up.
Industrial farms produce mountains of manure, creating a
waste-management nightmare that often "leaks" into
unsuspecting communities by way of water,
air and soil
pollution. In order to revive a sustainable food system, we must
enact policy and legislation that will help keep small family
farmers on the land, while curbing the economic and ecological
damage these large farms create.
Environmental Regulations
Industrial farms are supposed to be regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the federal level. The
EPA oversees programs such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean
Air Act to monitor and control animal waste and pollution from
factory farms. Unfortunately, the ability of the federal
government to effectively regulate these farms has been weak.
The corporations that promote and benefit from industrial
farming methods are hard at work in state capitols and
Washington, D.C. making sure legislation does not get between
them and their bottom line profit. Environmental regulations
were one of the first targets of the animal agriculture
industry. Factory farms are currently working to prevent
regulations requiring permits for releasing waste into local
water systems, and they appear to be succeeding. In June 2006,
the EPA proposed a rule giving factory farms the right to decide
for themselves whether or not they need permits to discharge
wastewater.iIf this rule is approved, industrial
farms will never have to report how much pollution they release
into a community's water system.
In 2005, the EPA introduced the Air Compliance Agreement,
which effectively offers factory farms a "free pass"
for air-quality violations as long as they participate in and
pay for part of an emissions monitoring study.ii Of
course, the cost of participating is much less than the fines
the factory farms should be paying for violations under the
Clean Air Act. Until the EPA completes the monitoring study and
establishes new rules to control air emissions, the
participating factory farms will not be fined for any air
pollution caused by their operations.iii
Local Control
According to the EPA, many negative impacts of industrial farms
that are immediately visible to a community - such as odor,
nuisance and health code violations - are not regulated by
federal laws.ivTherefore, state and local efforts to
control factory farms are also of the utmost importance. Many
township and county governments have responded to the threat
industrial farms pose to their community’s health, economy
and quality of life by enacting measures that keep them from
operating in that region.v
There are also important steps that can be taken on a
state level to protect the environment and the public from
industrial farms. In 1997, local sustainable agriculture groups
and rural residents in Minnesota successfully helped pass state
legislation enforcing air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide
emissions, a gas that produces flu-like symptoms, in response to
a rash of illnesses related to factory farm pollution.vi
That same year, North Carolina placed a moratorium on the
construction and extension of excessively large hog farms.vii
The moratorium succeeded in curbing the growth of the factory
hog farming industry in the state.
In 2000, the state also made an agreement with
Smithfield, the world’s largest hog producer, to phase out
the use of open air manure lagoons and spray fields.viii
Even with these state efforts, local residents continue to
suffer water and air pollution from existing farms.ix
As the American Public Health Association
asserted, the moratorium is really only a temporary measure to
be used while research is being conducted on the health impacts
of air and water pollution from factory farm operations.
International Issues
Public health and environmental regulations are less stringent
in some developing countries, leading to the export of US
industrial farms overseas. After North Carolina enacted their
moratorium on the construction and expansion of large hog farms,
Smithfield purchased a majority share of Animex, the largest
meat producer in Poland.
Now the company effects the environment
and people in Poland instead of
North Carolina, x and we end up consuming imported
animal products from industrial farms operating abroad.
Industrial farming has become an issue which needs to be
regulated at the international level.
The Farm Bill and
Subsidies
The Farm Bill defines the federal government’s role in the
agricultural market, provides different types of government
subsidies (or funding) to farmers, and has been widely
criticized for benefiting mostly large industrial farms while
doing little to help small family farms.
Several government subsidies help factory farms profit by
allowing them to keep costs and, therefore, prices low. The
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which provides
payments and technical assistance for improving environmental
quality and conservation practices on agricultural lands,
currently lists the reduction of industrial farm contamination
as one of their top priorities.xi More than 50
percent ($9 billion) of the Farm Bill’s conservation fund
is spent on EQIP.xii In other words, your tax money
is being used to help clean up massive amounts of pollution that
large industrial farms create, holding corporations
unaccountable and letting them spend their profits elsewhere.
The current farm bill also promotes overproduction of
feed crops, such as corn and soybeans, which, in turn, drives
crop prices down.xiii The U.S. government spent an
annual average of $4.5 billion on corn and $2 billion on soy
between 2000 and 2004 to compensate farmers for low crop prices.xivThe
largest agribusiness companies
benefit from this policy by paying rock bottom prices for corn
and soy to make feed for their factory farms, while the
government pays the crop farmers so they don’t go
bankrupt. Thus, the federal government is indirectly paying for
up to 15 percent of feed costs for factory farms, and since feed
is such a major expense for these facilites this translates to
7-10 percent of their total operating costs.xv
When it comes to grant-making programs for farmers, US
policy also tends to favor large-scale producers, while
neglecting smaller farms. An assessment of four major USDA grant
programs in 2001 and 2002 showed that only 3% of funds were
granted to small and medium sized farms.xvi
What’s more, only 5% of the grant programs were even
relevant to small and medium sized farms.xvii
Agribusiness Lobbying and
Campaign Donations
Like so many other industries that hope to influence law-makers
in Washington, DC, agribusiness
uses its enormous financial power to influence government
decisions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics,
agribusinesses contributed more than $381 million to the
election campaigns of federal candidates and incumbents between
1990 and 2006.xx This figure is higher than that of
the total donations over the same time period by several other
powerful industries, such as transportation ($330
million),xxi defense ($108 million)xxii
and energy/natural resources ($384 million).
Where does all this money go? A considerable portion of
agribusiness money ends up in the pockets of politicians who
have the most control over agricultural policy, including
members of the House and Senate agriculture committees. Since
the 2000 election cycle, agribusiness has contributed more than
$120 million to Congress, $88.9 million of which has gone to the
re-election campaigns of congressional incumbents.xxiv
Agribusiness contributions also go to members of the House
Committee on Agriculture, xxv as well as to members
of the Senate’s Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Committee.xxvi
A report released in June 1996 revealed the agribusiness
industry’s lobbying efforts for the (deceptively titled)
Food Quality Protection Act, a bill that aimed to loosen federal
pesticide regulations. In order to push this legislation
through, 203 interested corporations joined together as the
“Food Chain Coalition,” and donated $13.4 million to
members of Congress between November of 1992 and June of 1996.
Of the $9.3 million given to members of the House of
Representatives, 73 percent went to the legislators that
co-sponsored the Food Quality Protection Act’s bill, and
members of the House Commerce Committee (which has control over
pesticide legislation). Each House Commerce Committee member
received $11,300 more than the average co-sponsor in the House,
and two and a half times more than committee members who did not
support the bill.xxvii Not surprisingly, the Food
Quality Protection Act was passed in 1996.xxviii
What You Can Do
Food and agriculture corporations are driven by financial
profits, often at the cost of public health and environmental
protection. But we, as voters and consumers, have the power to
challenge them with their very own source of power: profits.
- Vote with your food dollar! As
consumers, we all have the power to break down agribusiness by
buying our food from small farms. Use the Eat
Well Guide to find small local farms with which to do business.
If nobody buys food from agribusinesses and industrial farms,
corporations will no longer have the financial power to sway
policymakers and legislators.
- Sign up for Food and Water Watch alerts to stay
up-to-date on proposed farm legislation and to find out how you
can help affect current policy.
- Stay informed about campaign
contributions. Every candidate is required by federal law to
report how much campaign cash they’ve received and from
whom. This information is readily available online at www.opensecrets.org,
the website for the Center for Responsive Politics, where you
can find out if your legislators are beholden to agribusiness
interests.
Did You Know?
- Between 1974 and 2002, the number
of corporate-owned U.S. farms increased by over 46 percent.xxix
- Between 1995 and 2005, over 70
percent of all agricultural subsidies went to a mere 10 percent
of producers. The other 90 percent of farms had to split the
remaining 30 percent of government funds.xxx
For more information
- The Center
for Responsive Politics is a non-partisan, non-profit research
group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics
and its effect on elections and public policy. The
Center’s website, www.opensecrets.org, contains a wealth of
detailed and accessible information on the amount of money
circulating in politics.
- The Environmental Working Group's team of
scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer
programmers pores over government data, legal documents,
scientific studies and its own laboratory tests to expose
threats to your health and the environment, and to find
solutions.
- Food and Water Watch challenges the
corporate control of our food and water resources by empowering
people to take action and by transforming the public
consciousness about what we eat and drink.
- Find out more about regulations and legislation on the GRACE
Factory Farm Project website.
- Read comments and analysis on the
2007 Farm Bill from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Sources
|
