The Issues: Flies

 

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.

sustainable TableEnvironmental 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