Download
1 / 75
750 likes | 912 Views
Corporate Dairy Farming. Current practice is to produce as much milk as the industry can, with fewer cows, and at the cheapest cost possible to ensure competitive prices on the world market. It has had disastrous effects on human health, the environment and especially the small farmer.In this sum
E N D
1. Corporate Dairy Production: How the Industry Profits at Our Expense Jason McVay Urban Studies 515 Race Poverty & the Urban Environment www.whymilk.comwww.whymilk.com
2. Corporate Dairy Farming Current practice is to produce as much milk as the industry can, with fewer cows, and at the cheapest cost possible to ensure competitive prices on the world market. It has had disastrous effects on human health, the environment and especially the small farmer.
In this summary of intensive dairy operations, I will describe:
Dairy Production: Just how intensive production is. The amount of dairy product on the market, from the U.S. alone is staggering and production shows no sign of letting up.
Advertising: The advertising campaigns used to market and sell a product whos demand has been decreasing since the 1970s, and how the federal government sponsors the claims and the faulty scientific evidence with which dairy products are promoted to children, women and people of color.
Health Impacts of Dairy Consumption: associated with mass-produced dairy products, including effects of rBGH, hormones and dioxin.
Environmental Impacts of Dairy Operations: Including effects to other species, humans, and the risks associated with working on the corporate farm.
The Lagoon and Sprayfiled System: Waste disposal.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development: Conglomeration in the dairy industry and how it effects the small farmer and deteriorates opportunity for community development.
The World Bank and Dairy Production: The World Bank wants to promote the Western model to the developing world, despite possible disaster.
Conclusion: Americans are concerned with their food supply. Corporate farming is in conflict with what we want, yet keeps chugging along with government support.
3. Dairy Production Holstein dairy cows weigh approximately 1,400 pounds and eat 50 pounds of dry feed each day, which accounts for half of the U.S. industrys production costs.
Feed generally consists of corn silage (fermented for increased nutritional value), winter grain silage, alfalfa hay, corn, barley, food wastes such as hulls and fruit pulp, cottonseed[i], soybean seed and other high energy additives like fats.[ii] Roughage must comprise 40 percent of feed in order to allow the rumen to function properly.[iii]
For Victoria, Canada, the countrys largest dairy producing region, total feed intake averaged 4,000 kilograms of dry feed per year per cow, and, during 1999/2000, total feed consumption for the dairy industry was about 7,224 kilotonnes.[iii]
[i] Collar, Carol. The Dairy Industry in Kings County {Private}. Dairy Notes, the University of California Cooperative Extension. http://countyofking.com/kingsce. Accessed 5/16/03.
[ii] Ely, Lane O. and Githrie, Larry D. Managing the High Producing Dairy Cow. University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c788-w.htm. Accessed 5/16/03.
[iii] Dairy Research and Development Corporation. Grain Consumption by the Dairy Industry to double by year 2000. Meyers Strategy Group. Research Note 28, 1995.
4. Dairy Production Water consumption is immense. Dairy cows drink 10 times a day, leading to a 10.7 percent increase in butterfat content. Dry Holstein cows drink on the average 40 kilograms per day; milking cows about 85 kilograms per day. Calves drink 4 to 23 kilograms per day.[i] The USDA claims average consumption is between 25-50 gallons per day, with another 30 gallons of water per cow devoted to washing equipment and parlors. Jack Van Horn, with the University of Floridas Cooperative Extension Service, says a New Mexico dairy cow will use 115 gallons of water per day. Lots include thousands of cows:
...a 3,000 head dairy will use 345,000 gallons of water per day
not including water used for crop irrigation that will become feed. A dairy of the same size applied for a wastewater permit to discharge 75,000 gallons per day into a lagoon system.[ii]
[i] Irwin, R.W. Water Requirements of Livestock. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Factsheet. Updated 1992. http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/engineer/facts/86-053.htm#dairy. Accessed 5/16/03.
[ii] Concerned Citizens for Clean Water, Inc. Dairies and CAFOs Contribute to Water Depletion and Pollution. http://saveourwatersupply.com/cafos. Accessed 5/16/03.
5. Dairy Production These numbers are to promote optimum production from the cow:
Every time the cow goes off feed she will decrease her milk production. Not only is milk production lost, but because some secretary tissue is lost, she never quite recovers her production potential.[i]
Constant lactation is current practice, milking three times a day if feeding is adequate, increasing production up to 25 percent. Rolling herd averages are above 20,000 pounds per cow per year, with some hitting 30,000 pounds.[ii]
USDA numbers from 2002 state an average of 18,571 pounds per cow, up 412 pounds per cow from 2001. There were 9.14 million cows producing milk, 27,000 more than in 2001.[iii]
[i] Ely, Lane O. and Githrie, Larry D. Managing the High Producing Dairy Cow. University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c788-w.htm. Accessed 5/16/03.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Milk Production, Disposition and Income: 2002 Summary. April, 2003.
6. Dairy Production The darling of the industry is Arlinda Ellen who produced 55,661 pounds of milk in 1975, a current record. Her best day was 195 pounds of milk, and she averaged 152.5 pounds per day. During the peak of lactation she ate over 65 pounds of 16 percent commercial grain, 70 pounds of alfalfa hay, and she drank 50 to 60 gallons of water per day
She consumed over 7 percent of body weight as dry matter
[i]
[i] Ely, Lane O. and Githrie, Larry D. Managing the High Producing Dairy Cow. University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c788-w.htm. Accessed 5/16/03. www.animal-lib.org.au/lists/ vegan/vegan.shtml www.animal-lib.org.au/lists/ vegan/vegan.shtml
7. Dairy Production The United States, the worlds largest dairy producer, markets milk, milk powders, frozen deserts, cheese and whey. For 2002, dairy production was as follows:
Fluid Milk: Production increased 3 percent from 2001 to 170 billion pounds.[i]
Cheese: 8.6 billion pounds, 4.1 percent above 2001. Wisconsin was the leading state, contributing 26 percent of production.
Butter: 1.36 billion pounds, 10 percent above 2001. California led with 28 percent of production.
Frozen desert: Regular ice-cream totaled 989 million gallons, 1.9 percent higher than 2001; Lowfat ice-cream totaled 362 million gallons, down 4.9 percent; and Nonfat was 20.6 million gallons, a 7.8 percent decrease from 2001; Sherbet production increased 3.8 percent from 2001 levels to reach 54.6 million gallons; and Frozen Yogurt production hit 73.4 million gallons, up 3.2 percent from 2001.
Nonfat dry milk for human consumption: 1.57 billion pounds, up 11.0 percent from 2001.
Dry Whey Products: Whey for human consumption increased 7.5 percent to 1.05 billion pounds; animal whey production was 63.1 million pounds, down 5.6 percent.[ii]
[i] ibid.
[ii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Dairy Products: 2002 Summary. April, 2003.
8. Advertising Dairy industry advertising campaigns have been very successful at keeping an industry whose demand has been generally decreasing since the 1970's, profitable. Cash receipts from milk marketing efforts in 2002 reached $20.5 billion, a 17 percent decrease from 2001. Per hundredweight returns for producers dropped 19 percent from the previous year to $12.19.[i]
[i] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Milk Production, Disposition and Income: 2002 Summary. April, 2003. http://www.whymilk.com/digipress_art.htmhttp://www.whymilk.com/digipress_art.htm
9. Advertising The promotion programs (administered by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board which operates under the larger blanket of the USDA) have come from two Acts of Congress:
the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act), and the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (Fluid Milk Act).
Both programs are funded by levies placed on product; 15 cent-per-hundredweight for the Dairy Act's production research and nutrition education efforts, and 20 cent-per-hundredweight assessment for processors who market more that 500,000 pound per month for the Fluid Milk Act's education and promotion schemes.[i] "It is estimated that dairy producers received $5.33 in return for each additional dollar spent on generic promotion."[ii]
[i] Blisard, Noel. Advertising and What We Eat: The Case of Dairy Products. Economic Research Service, USDA.
[ii] ibid.
10. Advertising Both Acts accounted for $183.5 million in advertising from 1984 to 1996 and increased consumption by 16.9 billion pounds of fluid milk.
An increase of 1.4 billion pounds of consumed fluid milk occurred from October 1995 to September 1996, when $29.8 million was spent on advertising. This amounts to a 5.9 increase in sales.
24 billion pounds of cheese were consumed during the 1984 to 1996 period, an increase of 561.9 million pounds or 2.3 percent. From October 1995 to September 1996 advertising increased cheese sales by 5.3 million pounds (0.4 percent).[i]
[i] Blisard, Noel. Advertising and What We Eat: The Case of Dairy Products. Economic Research Service, USDA.
11. Advertising In March 1994, the marketing efforts of the American Dairy Association and the National Dairy Council merged to create Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI).[i]
DMI's implementation allows for national, regional and local marketing efforts to function together. "At the 2001 forums, dairy directors across the country helped to finalize dairy promotion's long term marketing plan, which for fluid milk focused on kids and the mothers of those young children..."[ii] Also, a heavier focus on kid's school programs and a more "proactive" dairy image protection effort were goals for 2001.
Public relations campaigns, print, and television advertising has received primary funding, focusing on kids, young teens and Hispanic and African-Americans.[iii]
[i] Kaiser, Harry M. Impacts of Generic Fluid Milk and Cheese Advertising on Dairy Markets 1984-1998. Department of Agriculture, Resource, and Managerial Economics. Cornell University. 1999.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
12. Advertising Milk is marketed to our youth through the school systems.[i]
It is important to remember, that milk and other dairy products are promoted as necessary for healthy, nutritious diets. Schools are required to promote good nutrition and receive pressure from the government, parents, and the public at large to do so. As long as dairy products are treated as necessities to prevent osteoporosis and promote strong skeletal development, dairy products will always be a part of institutional nutrition education.
[i] Rangwani, Shanti. White Poison: The Horrors of Milk. www.alternet.org. 2001.
13. Advertising DMI claims that school milk consumption promotes the general health of our children. In a fairly recent study sponsored by the National Dairy Council and published by Promar International an economic consulting firm, "specializing in food and agricultural economic and strategy analysis" that, "If the nation's schools adopted enhancements to school milk, children's nutrition would improve long-term and Americans would likely achieve major long-term cost savings in health care."[i]
This claim is the result of a pilot test conducted during the 2001-2002 school year, involving more than 100,000 students from 146 schools in 12 markets. "The pilot test clearly showed that more children will opt to drink more milk when offered an enhanced milk product as part of the school meal program."[i] The estimates suggest a per capita increase of 1.4 gallons among the 6-17 age bracket resulting in a 67 million gallon overall increase. The industry is currently riding a 10-ear high in consumption among this same age group.[ii]
[i] Pelzer, David. Study: School Milk Enhancements Nationwide Will Help America Save $1 Billion in Future Health Care Costs. Dairy Management Inc. 2002.
[i] ibid.
[ii] ibid.
14. Advertising The increase in consumption is directly related to the enhancements implemented, which was the focus of the pilot test. The enhancements include:
plastic, resealable packaging in sizes from 8-16 ounces,
introduction of additional flavors (beyond white and chocolate),
expanded availability, including vending machines, and,
improved refrigeration.[i]
Promar states that the savings would be due to the healthier diet of our youth:
"During their lifetime, more than 2.6 million students could reduce their risk of osteoporosis, hypertension, colorectal cancer, type II diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke by adopting and maintaining healthy diets - including drinking milk at school and participating in school meal programs."[ii]
[i] Pelzer, David. Study: School Milk Enhancements Nationwide Will Help America Save $1 Billion in Future Health Care Costs. Dairy Management Inc. 2002.
[ii] ibid.
15. Advertising The school programs implemented in the United States have now become international. President Clinton launched the Global Food for Education Initiative in 2000. The program, with $300 million in funding, allowed the USDA to export surplus foodstuffs such as skim milk powder, and various starches to 9 million children around the world.
The U.S. Dairy Export Council is thrilled. "USDEC supports the initiative as a way of helping needy children, while also promoting and developing new outlets for dairy products.
USDEC believes this program should be permanent and operated in a manner that is not limited to the disposal of skim milk powder. Instead, the program should be expanded to include other dairy commodities, which also promote good nutrition and establish long-term commercial markets.[i]
[i] U.S. Dairy Export Council. http://www.usdec.org/tradepolicy/schoolfeeding.htm
16. Advertising Milk itself is a reflection of our institutionally racist culture. Not that the dairy industry is trying to deprive anyone of their product, but most non-white races cannot process lactose, the primary sugar in milk, yet the government markets milk to Asian, African and Latino-Americans to increase overall consumption. Because non-white people on average do not consume milk, this is a constantly emerging market.[i]
The dairy industry is quite impressed with their marketing efforts toward Asians and Hispanics in particular. Cheese exports to Mexico in 2001 exceeded 2000 levels by 63 percent. "In China, where cheese is not a part of the traditional diet, dairy ingredient promotions led to a 69 percent increase in lactose exports and a 20 percent increase in whey exports."[ii]
[i] U.S. Dairy Export Council. http://www.usdec.org/tradepolicy/schoolfeeding.htm
[ii] USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Impact of Generic Fluid Milk. http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/prb/rtc_2002/chapter_3.pdf. Accessed 5/15/03.
17. Advertising 2001 brought with it the "got milk/Milk Mustache" campaign from DMI, which developed partnerships with Walt Disney and the National Basketball Association, among others, in order to capture child, teen, adult and athletic markets.
These print ads appeared in more than 90 magazines, the largest buy of any beverage advertiser. The campaign also included medical advisory board members as spokespersons, billboards, transportation sector ads, consumer promotions and contests, hotlines about the benefits of milk, informational brochures, internet sites and college campus tours.[i]
[i] Blisard, Noel. Advertising and What We Eat: The Case of Dairy Products. Economic Research Service, USDA.
18. Advertising The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) conducted a census survey to determine the popularity of the Milk Mustache campaign.
Three-fourths of the 1,500 Americans from 15 cities "like or love" the ads.
Nearly 85 percent of the respondents "would like to have the benefits that go along with the Milk Mustache celebrity lifestyle,"[i] and would like to have their own ad.
Overall, 60 percent of the respondents said that the ads get them to drink more milk.[ii] It is no wonder, considering the list of celebrities that have donned the mustache: former president Bill Clinton, despite his allergy to dairy products[iii];
[iInternational Dairy Foods Association. Gallons and Gallons of Glamour: Survey Shows Americans Love the Milk Mustache Campaign!. http://www.idfa.org/news/gotmilk/2000/glamour.cfm. accessed 5/15/03.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] Cohen, Robert. Rugrats: An Endangered Species. The Dairy Education Board, 1998. http://www.notmilk.com/deb/110198.html. accessed 5/15/03.
www.notmilk.comwww.notmilk.com
19. Advertising Spike Lee, WNBA basketball stars, tennis players Serena and Venus Williams, and model Tyra Banks have all done ads, when 95 percent of African-Americans are lactose intolerant
and Larry King wore the mustache soon after recovering from triple bypass surgery. Would Larry King's doctors recommend him drinking milk? It would be hard to imagine considering the average American will consume enough cholesterol from dairy products to equal 53 strips of bacon daily![i]
[i] Cohen, Robert. Rugrats: An Endangered Species. The Dairy Education Board, 1998. http://www.notmilk.com/deb/110198.html. accessed 5/15/03.
http://www.whymilk.com/celebrities/index.htmhttp://www.whymilk.com/celebrities/index.htm
20. Advertising A current mustachioed ad features the Rugrats; cartoon children still in diapers, the eldest of the group being three years of age.
Robert Cohen, anti-dairy activist and executive director of the Dairy Education Board, notes that the proteins in milk products lead to diabetes in young children.
He quotes an article from Prevention and Medicine published in 1992, revealing that, "It has long been suspected that cow's milk proteins are a principle cause of diabetes in children, and a new report in the New England Journal of Medicine adds more support for this explanation...The journal article presented evidence implicating cows milk as the cause of diabetes in every one of 142 diabetic children in the study."[i]
[i] Cohen, Robert. Rugrats: An Endangered Species. The Dairy Education Board, 1998. http://www.notmilk.com/deb/110198.html. accessed 5/15/03.
Rugrats:http://www.notmilk.com/graphics/rugrats1.jpgRugrats:http://www.notmilk.com/graphics/rugrats1.jpg
21. Advertising In the face of such blatantly misleading print, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission in 2000 claiming false advertising by the dairy industry.
"It...explained why the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA'S) National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board, the dairy industry trade associations, and the advertising agency that developed the ad campaign should all be held accountable for what PCRM holds to be..."deceptive, and harmful advertising."[i]
The complaint focused on the faulty science applied by the FDA which ignores issues such as hypertension, high saturated fat content, lactose intolerance in minority communities and that osteoporosis is not caused by a lack of calcium, but by calcium loss.[ii]
[i] Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. PCRM Calls on the FTC to Investigate False and Misleading Health Claims in Milk Ads. http://www.pcrm.org/news/FTC_complaint.html. accessed 4/11/03.
[ii] ibid.
22. Advertising The FTC dismissed the claim in 2002 after a "'thorough review of relevant materials'" provided by the government (FDA) and other sources.
The review noticed a consistent trend toward the importance of calcium in the diet, and that dairy products are cited as good sources of calcium. The review states that milk consumption, based on its calcium, is beneficial for bone growth and prevention of osteoporosis.[i]
No mention is made of alternative sources of calcium, or the leaching effects of animal proteins. The emphasis is clearly on calcium, with added language that dairy products are a good source of calcium. The connection is not made to a point where one feels dairy products are necessary for a good diet. The review does not refute the fact that minority communities are most often intolerant of lactose, but states, quite simply, that they need calcium too.
[i] Landau, David. Federal Trade Commission: No Action Needed on PCRM Petitions, 2002. http://www.idfa.org/news/gotmilk/2002/pcrm.cfm. Accessed 5/15/03.
23. Advertising In a similar law suit, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has challenged the California Milk Advisory Board's "Happy Cows" campaign, which features the slogan, "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California."[i] The television and billboard campaign features computer generated cows grazing in green pasture below California's blue skies, talking about their idyllic lives.
[i] Weise, Elizabeth. PETA: 'Happy Cows' Ad is a Lie. USA Today, 2002. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-12-11-happy-cows_x.htm. accessed 5/16/03.
24. Advertising The suit claims this is false advertising. In reality, most California cows never set foot in a pasture. Most cows spend their time in the feedlots, eating and walking to the milking areas of the farm. http://www.unhappycows.com/http://www.unhappycows.com/
25. Advertising Dairy advocate Jim Reynolds, professor of veterinary science at the University of California at Davis and chair of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners Animal Welfare Committee believes consumers have the ability to determine fact from fiction, even though most people have never seen a corporate dairy operation. He compares the ads to televised beer commercials:
"I know when I buy a beer in a bar, I don't get two women in bikinis standing next to me."[i]
[i] Weise, Elizabeth. PETA: 'Happy Cows' Ad is a Lie. USA Today, 2002. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-12-11-happy-cows_x.htm. accessed 5/16/03.
http://www.unhappycows.com/photonew3.htmlhttp://www.unhappycows.com/photonew3.html
26. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Our government promotes milk consumption to ensure the proper development of our children, to keep us strong as we move through life, and to promote bone strength when we age. In particular, there is a significant push to consume milk and other dairy foods for the calcium content to prevent osteoporosis and brittle bones. By far the best source of calcium is dairy products. Not only is it a great source of calcium, but the lactose in milk seems to aid calcium absorption.[i] In actuality, none of these are reasons to drink milk.
There may not be a reason at all unless it is for taste, making milk, like its manufactured counterparts, luxury foods. Health effects from drinking milk are generally negative. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) states that, Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to your health.[ii] The PCRM report, Whats Wrong With Dairy Products lists eight reasons to not drink milk, directly contradicting the reasons why the federal government promotes consumption. Harvard studies claim that osteoporosis prevention has no association with dairy. In fact, increased intake of calcium from dairy products was associated with a higher fracture risk.[iii]
[i] Gilbert, Sue. Ask the Nutritionist: Boning Up on Calcium. iVillage.com. http://www.ivillage.com/food/experts/nutrition/articles/0,,244582_3280,00.html. Accessed 5/22/03.
[ii] Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Whats Wrong with Dairy Products? http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html. 2001 accessed 5/16/03.
[iii] ibid.
27. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Dr. Colin Campbell is the Director of the China-Oxford Cornell Study, the largest study of diet and disease in medical history.[i] He claims that increased consumption of animal calcium and protein causes degenerative disease. Countries with lower animal calcium intake levels have lower rates of bone fracture.[ii]
Fear of osteoporosis in this country is legitimate: over 28 million Americans have been diagnosed, 80 percent of whom are women. Victoria Toews, writing for the Vegetarian Times, rightly attributes lifestyle to the problem, including poor nutrition, smoking and exercise[iii], however these factors did not have any effect in a Harvard Nurses Study. That study included over 70 thousand women over 12 years and found that women drinking three or more glasses of milk every day had no risk reduction versus their counterparts who did not consume any dairy products.[iv]
Dairy products may be the worst way to try to increase calcium consumption. Although their calcium content is high, they also contain very high levels of animal protein. Proteins create acidic ash in the blood which is contrary to its natural, slightly alkaline state. The body removes calcium from the bones in order to obtain a balance.[v]
[i] Occhipinti, Mark, M.S. Does Milk Really Do The Body Good? Calcium and Protein: A Mixture for Disaster. http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILK.HTM. accessed 4/22/03.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] Towes, Victoria Dolby. Strong to the Bone. Alt Health Watch Database. Vegetarian Times, Jul2001 Issue 287.
[iv] Occhipinti, Mark, M.S. Does Milk Really Do The Body Good? Calcium and Protein: A Mixture for Disaster. http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILK.HTM. accessed 4/22/03.
[v] ibid.
28. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Fats and sugars in milk can cause various types of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Type 1 diabetes is caused by dairy consumption. Hormones and excessive amounts of vitamin D can be toxic. Milk proteins, milk sugar, fat, and saturated fat in dairy products may pose health risks for children and lead to the development of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and formation of athersclerotic plaques that can lead to heart disease.[i]
Recent research has shown that babies who were fed dried milk based formula now have higher blood pressure. Studies begun in the 1970s when breast feeding was on the decline in the United States and Great Britain, show higher blood pressure levels than breast-fed counterparts. Babies who get breast milk are healthier, less likely to become obese and may have better brain function, studies have shown.[ii] The adults fed cow-milk formula are taller however, according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.[iii]
This shows us more than the ill effects of dairy consumption: effects to human health are rarely immediate. Results for high blood pressure took 20 years. We have been drinking milk with synthetic growth hormone for seven so far.[iv]
[i] Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Whats Wrong with Dairy Products? http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html. 2001 accessed 5/16/03.
[ii] Fox, Maggie. Milk-Based Baby Formula Linked to Blood Pressure. Reuters News Article, May 22, 2003.
[iii] ibid.
[iv] Epstein, Samuel M.D. Monsantos Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks...Cancer Prevention Coalition, July, 1998. http://www.psrast.org/bghcpc.htm. accessed 4/23/03.
29. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones Hormones are injected into dairy herds to produce more milk, and increase profit. Analysis indicates the use of rBST (bovine somatotropin same as rBGH bovine growth hormone) has led to a 10 to 15 percent increase in feed efficiency and an additional 5 to 15 pounds of milk per cow per day. Ultimately, this can lead to a $34.30 profit per cow per lactation after rBST costs are taken out.[i] These are not huge number, however if we are talking about a 1,700 herd intensive dairy operation this equates to $58,310 per lactation.
The additional milk production from growth hormones is, obviously, not a natural process, causing diseases like mastitis. Similarly, humans consuming additional hormones, whether naturally produced by the cow, or forced through supplements, causes adverse effects to our composition. Cancer is the primary result.
[i] L.J. Butler. The Profitability of rBST on U.S. Dairy Farms. AgBioForum, Volume 2, Number 2, 1999.
30. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones The first actor to understand is IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1. This polypeptide, consisting of 70 amino acids is produced by all mammals in the liver and tissues of the body.
Human IGF-1 and bovine IGF-1 are identical. The hormone has very powerful and important effects on human development, even though its concentration is very low. Production is controlled by human growth hormone, and peaks at puberty. IGF-1 declines as we age, and by the time we are 70 our bodies should contain half the adult value.[i]
Cell growth, both normal and cancerous, is stimulated by IGF-1. Stanford University research has shown promotion of both prostate and breast cells. In 1995 researchers at the National Institutes of Health reported that IGF-1 plays a central role in the progression of many childhood cancers and in the growth of tumors in breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and cancers of the pancreas and prostate.[ii]
[i] Larsen, Hans R., MSc Che. Milk and the Cancer Connection. http://mercola.com/fcgi/PrinterFrielndly.fcgi. Accessed 4/27/03.
[ii] ibid
31. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones Cancerous prostate cells are extremely sensitive to IGF-1. High blood levels of the hormone in men, 300 and 500 ng/mL versus normal levels of 100 to 185 ng/mL, has led to four times the risk of developing prostate cancer. Dr. Samuel Epsteins 1996 article in the International Journal of Health Sciences, clearly warned of the danger of high levels of IGF-1 contained in milk from cows injected with synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBGH).[i]
Women with small increases of IGF-1 in their blood are seven times more likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer, making it one of the leading causes of breast cancer. Higher rates of breast cancer have been seen in people with gigantism, who have high IGF-1 levels. Primates injected with IGF-1 have shown breast enlargement and increases of breast tissue, indicating that, IGF-1 is a potent stimulator of human breast cells in tissue culture.[ii]
Dr. Epstein notes that rBGH milk has now been on the market since 1995, despite its chemical and nutritional differences from normal milk proven by the International Journal of Health Services. The IGF-1 levels may be up to 10 times higher than in natural milk, and also more potent because it is not as strongly tied to its protein sequence.[i]
[i] Epstein, Samuel M.D. Monsantos Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks...Cancer Prevention Coalition, July, 1998. http://www.psrast.org/bghcpc.htm. accessed 4/23/03.
[ii] ibid.
[i] ibid.
32. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones Reviews conducted by Consumer Union indicate much of the same. In 1993, studies showed no increase in IGF-1 levels. That was done before Monsanto, the maker or rBGH, called Prosilac, released their 1987 study to the public. The question now is not if, but how much.
All four Monsanto studies, using the dose recommended by Monsanto to farmers, did show a statistically significant increase
the milk IGF-1 level from the 9 rBST-treated cows was higher than any of the levels of control cows.[i] The authors quote an Elanco study that found, After somidobove injection, mean IGF-1 levels in the treated animals are always higher than those found in controls
Therefore, in this study an increase of approximately 25% of the mean was found in the somidobove-treated animals.[ii]
IGF-1 content also increases with a high energy diet rich in protein, which all commercial cows receive.[iii]
[i] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y. Potential Public Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production. Consumers Union, September 1997. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
33. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones IGF-1 resists pasteurization and digestion, and is readily absorbed into intestine walls.[i] It is natural: children must be able to absorb IGF-1 readily to develop from breast milk. On theoretical grounds alone, one might expect IGF-1 to survive digestion. Milk has been shown to contain a number of growth factors, including ones that stimulate growth or the gut.
Since newborns and young infants have the fastest growth rates, one would expect that any growth factors that a mother might give her infant would be found at their highest concentrations in the earliest milk in the lactation, when the infant is growing the fastest. Furthermore, for the mothers milk to be able to deliver growth factors that will affect the gastrointestinal tract, those growth factors must survive digestion in the stomach and reach the upper and lower intestines where they can have local stimulatory/growth effects.[ii]
[i] Epstein, Samuel M.D. Monsantos Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks...Cancer
Prevention Coalition, July, 1998. http://www.psrast.org/bghcpc.htm. accessed 4/23/03.
[ii] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y.
Potential Public Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy
Production. Consumers Union, September 1997.
http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm. accessed 4/28/03
34. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones IGF-1 has its most potent, cancerous effects in tissues where its growth factor is most important: mammary, cardiovascular and respiratory cells, as well as skeletal and nervous systems and intestinal tracts. Children are the most afflicted. Osteosarcoma develops in the skeletal systems producing hard, painful masses; lung cancer may develop in the respiratory system; and angiogenisis occurs in blood vessels, literally transporting cancer cells throughout the body.[i]
[i] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y. Potential Public Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production. Consumers Union, September 1997. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
35. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones Other hormone implants have been implicated in the sexual maturation of children, including early breast development (male and female), accelerated puberty, vaginal bleeding in five year old girls and other similar problems.[i]
Dr. Rodriguez studied Puerto Rican children exposed to hormone treatments from meat and dairy consumption. When the children were taken off of these foods, symptoms would regress. Regulation are less strict in Puerto Rico, and tropical countries need more hormones because cows are less productive in hot climates. Dr. Rodriguez writes that 97 percent of breast abnormalities were due to whole milk consumption in infants, and milk, poultry and beef consumption in the older age group.[ii]
Milk being most heavily marketed to our children makes the Rugrats ad criminal.
[i] Leading Edge Research. Premature Sexual Maturation of Human Children. 1996. http://www.nisbett.com/news/h-news32.htm. accessed 5/22/03.
[ii] ibid. www.whymilk.com; Cornell Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors: Premature Thelarch in Puerto Rico.www.whymilk.com; Cornell Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors: Premature Thelarch in Puerto Rico.
36. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones Hormone injections, especially concerning rBGH lead to mastitis and other diseases in cows, requiring additional antibiotic inputs, increasing resistance in bacteria, showing up in our dairy products[i], and further increasing cost to the farmer.
After the FDA approved POSILAC, it required post approval monitoring. Studies showed an overall increase in mastitis rates of 32 percent. Variability between older and current studies indicate averages hide the seriousness of the problem. Sometimes herds are hit with 50 percent infection rates, while others, none at all.[ii] Studies conducted at the University of Vermont have proven that cows treated with rBGH require more antibiotic input than common mastitis, and treatment durations are longer.
As a condition of POSILAC approval in the U.S., the FDA required that Monsanto include a package insert which explicitly states that it will increase drug use: Use of POSILAC is associated with increasing frequency of use of medication in cows for mastitis and other health problems.[iii]
[i] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y. Potential Public Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production. Consumers Union, September 1997. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
37. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones Although U.S. milk is tested for antibiotics, and bad milk is tossed out, many antibiotics are used that do not require detection. According to U.S. law, and antibiotic approved for human consumption may be used on dairy cows. The U.S. General Accounting Office in 1990 and 1992 said current testing cannot guarantee illegal residues will be prevented from entering the milk supply.
A 12 year old boy, according to the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000, was admitted into a hospital because of poisoning related to a new strain of salmonella. The bacteria showed resistance to the drug Ceftriaxone that had been used both on humans and dairy cows.[ii]
[i] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y. Potential Public Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production. Consumers Union, September 1997. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm.
[ii] Cohen, Robert. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance. Biotech Activist List, posted May 5, 2000. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
38. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones The question must be asked, how is recombinant bovine growth hormone legal? It is simply a matter of deception.
Prior to approval, Monsantos 1989 study of cow herds showed incidences of mastitis. In order to guarantee acceptance, Margaret Miller, the top dairy expert at Monsanto, left for the FDA where she changed antibiotic standards. She increased by 100 times the allowable level of antibiotics that farmers could put in milk.[i]
Like USDAs regulatory role conflicting with its advertising promotion, the FDA began acting as a promoter of rBGH. Dr. Richard Burrows, a standout in the Food and Drug Administration for many years was reprimanded and eventually fired for criticizing PROSILAC. Soon after, the FDA began promoting Monsantos product before its approval.
[i] Cohen, Robert. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance. Biotech Activist List, posted May 5, 2000. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
39. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones They had FDA scientists print independent reviews in journals like Science, using incomplete, unpublished information. In particular, a study reportedly lasting only 90 days really lasted 180 days, thus altering the results. Similarly, according to testimony given by Robert Cohen before an FDA panel that amino acid changes caused by rBGH are insignificant.
I quote Cohen, Its safe because when you pasteurize milk, you destroy the hormone
To this day, FDA thinks
that 90% of the bovine growth hormone is destroyed by pasteurization
But what
two Monsanto scientists (did) was he pasteurized milk for 30 minutes at 162oF, and when I read that I said, wait a second, milk is pasteurized for 15 seconds at that temperature
They intentionally tried to destroy the hormone, they only destroyed 19 percent of it
[i]
[i] Cohen, Robert. Testimony before FDA Panel Nov. 30, 1999.
40. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones There is more:
Michael Taylor, the FDA Commissioner for Policy wrote rBGH labeling guidelines in 1994, stating that there was no difference between milk treated with rBGH and natural milk. It was later discovered he had been a lawyer with Monsanto for seven years.[i]
When Bob Dole ran for President, he had Donald Rumsfeld as his Chief of Staff, who was the ex-president of Searle which was owned by Monsanto.
Monsanto had a lawyer appointed to the Supreme Court by George Bush, Sr.: Clarence Thomas who was influential in George Bush, Jr.s election.
Our Secretary of Agriculture was on the board of directors for a pharmaceutical company now owned by Monsanto.
In John Ashcrofts bid for Congress he accepted more money from Monsanto than any other Congressional Representative, five times the amount of his opponent.[ii]
[i] Cohen, Robert. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance. Biotech Activist List, posted May 5, 2000. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
[ii] Cohen, Robert. How Big?. http://notmilk.com/pelican.html. accessed 5/16/03.
41. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Hormones Robert Cohen referred to a bill before Congress during his testimony that would have required labeling all products affected by genetic engineering. The bill died before the Dairy Livestock and Poultry Committee. Cohen, as he always does, researched the 12-member Committee: $711,000 was accepted by the gentlemen in donations from dairy interests; four took money directly from Monsanto.[i]
[i] Cohen, Robert. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance. Biotech Activist List, posted May 5, 2000. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
42. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Dioxin Dioxin, an industrial waste product that is categorized as a human carcinogen by the World Health Organization, accumulates in fatty tissues.
Up to 96% of human exposure to dioxin occurs through consumption of animal products, including dairy.[i]
Tracey Easthope, writing for the Ecology Center in Michigan points to a U.S. EPA report released on June 9, 2000 stating a minimum of 4,000 people in this country will develop cancer from dioxin.
"Dioxin will cause an unknown number of children to be born with birth defects, suppressed immune systems and learning disabilities."[ii]
The report is based on over 5,000 studies.[iii] This extremely harmful chemical is so prevalent that tracing its entry into the food system is difficult.
[i] Organic Consumer Association. Dioxin in Meat, Fish, and Dairy Products. 2001.
[ii] Easthope, Tracey. Even More Dangerous than Previously Thought. The Ecology Center. http://www.ecocenter.org/200009/dioxin.shtml. accessed 5/16/03.
[iii] ibid.
43. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Dioxin Dioxins are a byproduct of burning; released even from natural events such as forest fires or volcanic eruptions. However, the high levels of dioxin in the environment today are due to burning of industrial and household waste; creating chlorinated herbicides and pesticides; and the bleaching of paper pulp.[i]
The burning disposal of a similar, very harmful industrial product, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), releases dioxin into the environment. They are also a byproduct of the manufacture of PCBs[ii] Dioxins have been released into the atmosphere and water systems and have contaminated our soils, especially in areas close to incinerators. When PCBs were being produced, as insulators and herb/pesticides, they contaminated water systems through runoff streams on farms, and by direct release from factories. Often, dioxins settle at the bottom of streams, clinging to solids. They last for very long time periods in the environment, as well as the body, adhering to fats which inhibits elimination.[iii]
[i] Illinois Department of Health. Dioxin: Environmental Health Fact Sheet. http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/dioxin.htm. accessed 5/16/03.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
44. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Dioxin Dioxin enters the food system in a variety of ways, ranging from dust in the air which settles on plant matter to fish who may ingest contaminated soils. [i]
The World Health Organization conducted a study of seven cities in Catalonia from June to August 2000 to determine dioxin intake. The study, after sampling concentrations in the food supply, determined that dairy products contributed 25 percent of the dioxin intake for residents. Fish and shellfish were the only food source with higher levels (31 percent).[i]
The chemical bioaccumulates up the food chain because it is locked in fats. Generally, grazing animals like dairy cows are not greatly affected because dioxin is not taken up, readily, by vegetation.[ii] However, recent contamination may produce increased levels in vegetation for a short period of time. Harvested crops for feed and human consumption would then have higher levels of dioxin.[iii]
[i] Staff report from Immunotherapy Weekly via NewsRx.com and NewsRx.net. Food Dioxins: Exposure from the diet in Spain is mostly from fish, shellfish, and dairy. April 16, 2003. Accessed 4/26/03.
[ii] Illinois Department of Health. Dioxin: Environmental Health Fact Sheet. http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/dioxin.htm. accessed 5/16/03.
[iii] UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) report produced for the European Commission DG Environment: Compilation of EU Dioxin Exposure and Health Data. Task 3 - Environmental Fate and Transport, 1999. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/dioxin/task3.pdf. Accessed 5/16/03.
45. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Dioxin According to a report released by the UK Department of the Environment, "the significance of root uptake from the soil requires further investigation, as there appear to be large differences between plant species."[iv]
Despite evidence that crops do hold levels of dioxin, threatening feed and grazing condition, the governing leadership of the Kirkland Lake community in Canada (a leading dairy producer) is trying to attract the business of Bennett Environmental who wishes to build an incinerator to burn PCB- and dioxin-contaminated soil.
The goal is to provide economic development, but the effect on the dairy business could devastate Kirkland Lake. Milk producer Parmalat Canada has suggested that it will not guarantee purchasing milk from the region if an incinerator is active. During the winter of 2002, an entire dairy herd had to be slaughtered in France due to dioxin contamination linked to a local incinerator.[v]
[iv] UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) report produced for the European Commission DG Environment: Compilation of EU Dioxin Exposure and Health Data. Task 3 - Environmental Fate and Transport, 1999. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/dioxin/task3.pdf. Accessed 5/16/03.
[v] Griffin, Britt. Scary Dairy: PCB Fears Freak Milk Producer. NOW Online Edition, Toronto, Canada. http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2002-07-25/news_story2.php. Accessed 5/16/03.
46. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Dioxin Dioxin in dairy products is a serious issue, and our ignorance regarding contamination is harming public health. Two fairly recent events illustrate the problem:
In October 2002, PCBs, an indicator of dioxin, were found in feed produced by a Belgian company.[iii] The contamination was traced back to a fat rendered for feed, which had then been sold to feed manufacturers[ii] and two dairies.[iii] The level of contamination was five times higher than the acceptable level set by Belgium, "the only EU state the (sic) runs a programme that systematically monitors possible feed contaminations. It is the only country with a PCB standard."[iv]
In a 2000 study sponsored by Junkscience.com, for the Dioxins 2000 conference, a sample of Ben & Jerry's ice-cream contained dioxin levels 2,200 above "the level of dioxin allowed in wastewater discharged into San Francisco Bay from the nearby Tosco oil refinery."[i] The study's authors, whose goal in this is to counter the EPA's lowering of acceptable dioxin exposure, claim 200 additional cancers could occur from consuming ice-cream with dioxin levels consistent with this sample.[ii]
[i] Lazaroff, Cat. Ben & Jerry's Dioxin Controversy. From Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,3802,00.html. Accessed via list serve http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ok-sustainability/2000-August/000092.html. Accessed 4/26/03.
[ii] ibid.
[ii] US Dairy Export Council Dioxin Fact Sheet. http://www.usdec.org/Regulatory/FactSheets/Dioxin.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
[iii] BBC Monitoring via Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire. Belgian Food Agency Discovers PCB Contamination in Animal Feed Company. October 24, 2002. Accessed 4/26/03.
[i] BBC Monitoring via Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire. Belgian Food Agency Discovers PCB Contamination in Animal Feed Company. October 24, 2002. Accessed 4/26/03.
[iv] ibid.
47. Health Effects: Consuming Dairy Dioxin
Standards and ability to test samples are non-existent in countries like India, where
levels of dioxin are now being found in high amounts in breast milk and dairy products.
The Indian Express comments, "While the developed world has over the years managed
to reduce dioxin emissions through expensive measures and strict regulation, we do not
even have the facilities to test them."[i]
[i] Indian Express. The Silent Killers are Here. Global News Wire, The Indian Express Online Media Ltd. April 24, 2002.
48. Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy Operations The problems associated with large-scale dairy operations can significantly impact the quality of life for its neighbors. The dairy's size, economic and information advantages allow it to pollute with little chance of penalty.
California's Central Valley is a perfect example. Many of the dairies are polluters, infecting surface and groundwater, yet only four water inspectors are assigned to the 1600 dairies in the region. This amount of enforcement is staggering in terms of production. The Central Valley is the largest producer in California, the nation's leading state producer. 1.3 million cows reside in California and they produce 20 percent of our nation's consumption. The Central Valley is home to 891,000 cows, contributing "as much waste as 21 million people." One cow equates to 34 people, producing 114 pounds of waste per day and 22.5 tons in one year.[i]
The Natural Resources Defense Council points to a 1996 water quality study conducted by the state's Water Resources Control Board which states that dairies and feeding lots pollute hundreds of square miles of groundwater. Bill Jennings of DeltaKeeper is quoted in the NRDC report. In his patrols of the San Joaquin river valley he has noticed that, "'Dairies are the single largest source of water pollution in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties.'"[i]
[i] Natural Resources Defense Council. America's Animal Factories: How States Fail to Prevent Pollution from Livestock Waste. www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stcal.asp.
49. Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy Operations Most of the drainage heads toward Los Angeles, and approximately 65% of the states population, killing many fish and plankton species along the way. Ammonia, fecal material and bacteria and parasites like cryptosporidium, which can be fatal to humans with compromised immune systems, pollute waterways.
A cryptosporidium outbreak in 1993 affected the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin's water supply causing more than 400,000 people to become ill and approximately 100 death claims to be filed.[i] A study by the National Animal Health Monitoring System conducted from 1991-92 indicates that 90% of dairy operations tested positive for Cryptosporidium.[ii]
Nitrates are also present, and in high concentrations can cause "'blue baby syndrome,' a disease in which an infant's red blood cells are unable to carry sufficient oxygen.[iii] Excess nutrient loads in groundwater often effect neighbors and to the dairy itself more directly because of the dependence on well water in rural areas. Central Valley farmers noticed calves aborting from drinking well water, and in LaGrange County, Indiana, miscarriages have been linked to well water contaminated by nitrates.[iv]
[i] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] Natural Resources Defense Council. America's Animal Factories: How States Fail to Prevent Pollution from Livestock Waste. www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stcal.asp.
[iv] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
50. Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy Operations Odor and gas emissions acutely affect neighbors and regions in which large dairy farms operate. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO's) contribute vast amounts of odor and gas, especially in lagoon types of waste storage.
Hydrogen sulfide can be released when lagoon waters are disturbed. "Hydrogen sulfide is a gas that can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation, diarrhea, hoarseness, sore throat, cough, chest tightness, nasal congestion, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, stress, mood alterations, sudden fatigue, headaches, nausea, sudden loss of consciousness, comas, seizures and even death."[i] 19 people have died from exposure to hydrogen sulfide emissions from manure pits.[ii]
Earthen lagoons contain average amounts of hydrogen sulfide above 30 parts per billion. A study conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicated levels exceeding state regulations up to 4.9 miles away from feedlot lagoons. "In 2000, Kathy Norlien of the Health Department's Health Risk Assessment stated that 'without delay, actions should be taken to reduce the emissions for the protection and well-being of human health.'"[iii]
[i] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
51. Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy Operations Odor for the local population is a constant threat, one that dairy cannot remediate effectively. The effects intense odor can have are literally sickening. Stress and "conditioned responses" are common, and asthma conditions are irritated. William Weida of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment quotes several sources in regard to odor effects on the human condition. One article states that, "In the case of humans, the immediate physiological stresses produced by odors can cause loss of appetite and food rejection, low water consumption, poor respiration, nausea, and even vomiting, and mental perturbations. In extreme cases, offensive odors can lead to deterioration of personal and community well-being, interfere with human relations, deter population growth and lower its socio-economic status."[i]
In another article pertaining to asthma, Weida found that, "Many patients complain that some odors worsen their asthma...A survey of 60 asthmatic patients revealed a history of respiratory symptoms in 57 on exposure to one or more common odors. Odors are an important cause of worsening asthma. From a practical standpoint, sensitive asthmatic patients should be advised to eliminate odors from their environment as much as possible.[ii]
Workers are acutely affected as well, suffering chronic respiratory problems, including asthma, due to inhalation of dust and toxic gasses.[iii] Three immigrant workers in Californias Merced County died by inhaling gases that were pumped into storage containers housing fecal waste from dairy farms. The toxic fumes rendered the Mexican men unconscious, causing them to collapse into manure slurry.[iv]
[i] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
[iv] Romney, Lee. Death of Three Immigrant Workers Dog States Dairy Industry. Los Angeles Times. 2002.
52. Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy Operations Ammonia drastically effects air quality, agitates respiratory illness and is abundant in lagoons due to the 114 pounds of excrement produced by each cow per day. According the NRDC, ammonia may absorb dust, drawing it into the lungs.[i]
Methane, perhaps the most devastating of greenhouse gasses, is produced by dairy cows at twice the rate of beef cattle in feedlots.[ii] According to the EPA, emissions increased 53 percent from 1990-98, and the agency believes that the growth of hog and dairy farms are the cause.[iii]
Harmful viruses and bacteria are excreted and washed into lagoons. In addition to Cryptosporidium, Campylobacter, salmonella, E. coli, girardia and several other organisms are present in dairy cow fecal matter.[iv] In May 2000, "1,300 cases of gastroenteritis occurred and six people died" in Ontario. "The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care determined that the likely source was cattle manure runoff from a farm adjacent to a drinking water supply well."[v]
Milk that is found to have antibiotic contamination is not safe for human consumption, and must be disposed of, however, common practice is to feed this milk to dairy calves because of its nutritional value and the economic savings to the farmer.[i] This practice, although economical does contribute to antibiotic resistance, and continues to place the antibiotic into waste streams.[ii]
[i]Fritha Langford, Uri Burstyn, Lorne Fisher, Jim Shelford and Dan Weary. 2003. Feeding Waste Milk to Calves and Antibiotic Resistance. 21st Annual Western Canadian Dairy Seminar, Red Deer, AB March 11-14, 2003.
[ii] ibid.
[i] ibid.
[ii] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
[iii] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
[iv] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
[v] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
53. Lagoons & Sprayfields Livestock production has become industrialized, functioning in typical capitalist fashion: growth and profit as the only goal. Similar to the nuclear industry, waste output has become an incredible problem requiring specialized treatment programs that drain dollars away from profit margins.
Rather than address this issue, large-scale dairy operations have constantly sought exemptions from pollution regulations by claiming their business is necessary for community development.
The lagoon and sprayfield system of waste removal has become the norm, and the effects on the local and regional environment consistently remove capital from communities by subjecting the population to the health problems listed above and also decreasing the property value of the surrounding area, driving out all but those that cannot afford to relocate. This is a necessary evil for the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO's), however, the lagoon and sprayfield systems extend the evil beyond the boundaries of the farm into our clean water and air supply.
54. Lagoons & Sprayfields Animal waste, including wash water (used to clean the cows, their pens and the milking equipment) are collected into massive open pits reaching "a size as great as six to seven-and-a-half acres and can contain as much as 20 to 45 million gallons of wastewater."[i] The liquefied animal waste is then sprayed onto cropland via sprinklers as a fertilizer. This amounts to 8.2 billion pounds of waste from the cattle industry in one year, an amount well beyond the carrying capacity of our agricultural fields. Much of this waste runs off into our ground and surface water supplies.[ii]
The accumulative effects of manure runoff on waterways can deteriorate aquatic life and harm human health. The nitrates and phosphates that fertilize soil harm water quality by overloading. Because the dairy industry has moved so far beyond carrying capacity, nutrient overloads are inevitable. The NRDC report, Cesspools of Shame, highlights impacts beyond drinking water. Algae, which can be toxic, proliferate when exposed to high nutrient levels, killing off fish populations, altering coastal fisheries, eutrophicating waterways and changing the composition of soils.
[i] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid. www.hogwatch.org/html/gtf/ factr/gtf_factr_four.html www.hogwatch.org/html/gtf/ factr/gtf_factr_four.html
55. Lagoons and Sprayfields
The report lists Pfiesteria piscicida as a particularly harmful type of algae that has killed over one billion fish off the coast of North Carolina, a state infamous for its hog farm operations which use the same lagoon and spray techniques as massive dairy operations. Neil Julian Savage, a resident living near Browns hog farm in North Carolina described the situation to the NRDC, On several occasions, Browns has over-sprayed so much hog waste next to my property that, during heavy rains, the rainwater and the waste that was carried in it actually ran, in large amounts, right onto my land. A number of times this waste has ponded in my front yard. The waste has come up to my front porch, surrounded my drinking well, and run past my house onto what used to be my farm fields
We are afraid to drink the water from our well.[iii]
Minerals and heavy metals are used in dairy farming to promote growth, and they may also accumulate in the environment. Feed additives include arsenic and selenium, as well as copper and zinc. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, concentrations of selenium in lagoons and waste storage pits may be ten times the level that is safe for aquatic life.[i]
As the metals bioaccumulate, aquatic populations may be harmed, and may also enter our aquifers via groundwater. Metals can cause cancer in humans, as well as vascular disease, liver dysfunction and anemia. The EPA does not regulate metals from animal waste.[ii]
Neil Julian Savage, a resident living near Browns hog farm in North Carolina described the situation to the NRDC, On several occasions, Browns has over-sprayed so much hog waste next to my property that, during heavy rains, the rainwater and the waste that was carried in it actually ran, in large amounts, right onto my land. A number of times this waste has ponded in my front yard. The waste has come up to my front porch, surrounded my drinking well, and run past my house onto what used to be my farm fields
We are afraid to drink the water from our well.[iii]
[i] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
56. Lagoons & Sprayfields When lagoons spill over like the Browns hog lagoons, or breach their dams, the effect equates to a toxic waste spill.
NRDC statistics indicate spills occur with more than coincidental regularity: Between 1990 and 1994, 63 percent of Missouris factory farms suffered spills; In 1997, animal feedlots were responsible for 2,391 spills of manure in Indiana; From 1995 to 1998, there were at least 1,000 spills or other pollution incidents at livestock feedlots in ten states, and 200 manure-related fish kills that resulted in the death of 13 million fish.[i]
[i] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
www.hogwatch.org/html/gtf/ factr/gtf_factr_four.html www.hogwatch.org/html/gtf/ factr/gtf_factr_four.html
57. Lagoons & Sprayfields
During February of 2001, Inwood Dairy in Illinois dumped two million gallons of waste into a ravine. The dams burst and emptied the contents into Kickapoo Creek. At the time Inwood was under court order to keep their 40-million gallon lagoon from overflowing. Prior to the injunction, Inwood employees were spraying waste onto saturated fields and attempting to use sandbags to hold back the lagoon.[ii] For its poor management, Inwood paid a fine of only $50,000 and the state paid $300,000 for technology Inwood could use to breakdown the waste and produce electricity from the gas.[iii]
Karen Hudson, a community activist living near the farm expressed the outrage neighbors feel when industry forces its pollution onto residents, There is local control (in Illinois) for low-level nuclear waste and garbage. But when it comes to 50 million gallons of raw urine and feces a fourth of a mile from my house, we dont have a voice. And there is no difference
In fact, I think Id rather live next to a garbage dump
At least its more regulated and my county board can control and decide if it is safe.[iv]
[ii] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
[iii] Bischoff, Laura A. Illinois Megafarm Neighbors Sound Alarm on Waste. Dayton Daily News. 2002.
[iv] ibid.
58. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Large-scale dairies containing massive feedlots are strictly for-profit organizations that wish for little or no community influence and work toward instilling that in their region of influence. The dairy wishes to limit its work force, and limit output into the community.[i]
They have found their most choice location in rural areas that have little or no ability to attract business that provide greater economic development. Often these regions have already experienced a downturn in their agricultural sector.[ii]
Our national economy has shifted from agriculture to service industries, leaving the rural areas behind to conglomerate in cities where access to markets is much easier. Growth and high salaries are located in cities. The banking industry has become deregulated as well, raising interest rates for borrowers. Since the 1970s this has let to out-migration to metropolitan areas.[iii]
Rural areas wishing to develop their economies would like to attract manufacturing and service sector industries, however, manufacturers look for areas with established service areas, i.e., full service economies to support their business. Rural agricultural regions become isolated by their lack of appropriate infrastructure making the communities susceptible to declines in income and poverty.[i] As this occurs, communities lose political power and ability to resist outside influences that, as a community searching for positive living conditions, they would normally try to repel.
[i] Weida, William. Pollution Shopping in Rural America. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2001.
[i] Weida, William. A Summary of the Regional Economic Effects of CAFOs. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2001.
[ii] Weida, William. Pollution Shopping in Rural America. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2001.
[iii] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
59. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development The process by which a mega- dairy may occupy community land is complicated and involves many social, economic and corporate factors. First, no community wishes to be poor, and no community wishes for a harmful, polluting industry to be located next to their homes. The dairy industry and its Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO) rarely benefit the communities that in occupies. It seeks isolation to avoid community interaction because the industry profiteers know that they will inflict harm. Research has been performed over the past sixty years that illustrates this point, beginning in the 1940s with Walter Goldschmidts study of two California agricultural towns.[i]
Godschmidt began his work at the request of the U.S. Senate in order to research the relationship between a communities economic power and its well being. He compared and contrasted Arvin and Dinuba, California respectively. Arvin was a community dominated by farms substantially larger than those found in Dinuba, the community surrounded by smaller farms.[i] The two communities remained similar in many crucial ways such as the population, values, customs, and agricultural production.
[i] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
[i] Lyson, Thomas; Welsh, Rick. Anti-Corporate Farming Laws, the Goldschmidt Hypothesis and Rural Community Welfare. 2001.
60. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development In the study, Goldschmidt found living conditions to generally be better in Dinuba. The town supported a large population per volume of agricultural sales and there was greater availability of running water, electricity, radio and telephones. Schools and parks were numerous and of higher quality
Government decision-making was more democratic in that residents had an impact on community welfare issues through local popular elections while in Arvin, much decision making was left in the hands of community officials. Social participation was greater in Dinuba, as indicated by the number of civic and social organizations, community newspapers and churches.[i]
The economies differed significantly. Arvins primary income earners were laborers, but Dinubas income came from farmers and white-collar workers. Also, Dinubas non-farm economy supported service industries, retail stores and trade at a level twice that of Arvin. Goldschmidt concluded that small-scale farming produced the middle class with income stability that did not vary greatly between individuals, and fostered community involvement.
Large farm communities promoted low wage jobs, employing individuals with no ties to the community beyond their employment. Finally, the greater number of lower class individuals in Arvin was the major factor related to its poverty of social institutions, lower level of living, lower education, lower community loyalty and higher population turnover.[ii] The situation is current as of the publication of Ms. Labaos Locality and Inequality in 1990.[iii]
[i] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
61. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development The quality of life in Arvin decreased due to large farms, like large sized dairy operations. Because of a decrease in socioeconomic status, Arvin is less likely to escape its rut and expand its economy.
Labao references a study completed in 1988 by Falk and Lyson referring to industry movement in the South during the 1970s. Technologically sophisticated jobs became located near cities, while the rural poor, mostly black citizens continued to cling to low-wage employment. Most of the black farmers had been historically displaced by the mechanization of agriculture and forced into wage labor. In 1930, African-Americans operated 14 percent of farms in the South. By 1982 there were only two percent.[i] Without the access to capital, bank loans, etc. that have been historically (and still are) denied to African-Americans, it has been nearly impossible for them to compete technologically.
[i] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
62. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Another example of Goldschmidts hypothesis is Chaves County, New Mexico. The state itself boasts 170 dairies, nearly 300,000 cows, and the largest average herd size in the nation at 1700 cows per dairy. In a state dominated by extremely large corporate dairies, Chavez County is the cream rising to the top. The county has the most dairies in New Mexico, is the top producer in the state and tenth in the nation.[i] Median family income is $34,700, which is $14,100 less than the state average, and $15,500 less than the national average. The Hispanic population is above average in Chaves County.[ii]
[i] Dairy Producers of New Mexico. FAQ. http://www.nmdairy.org/faq1.htm
[ii] New Mexico Economic Development Department. County Statistics. Economic Research Service/USDA. Agricultural Outlook, 9/00.Economic Research Service/USDA. Agricultural Outlook, 9/00.
63. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Technological advancement has fostered vertical integration among intensive dairy operations which allow them to out-compete small scale producers.
Technological advancement, although requiring investment initially, allows producers to cut costs such as labor. Farming is extremely competitive, and those producers that can cut production cost also cut market prices making their product more enticing to the consumer. Income falls, so production must increase, requiring additional technology input. Large producers then set the pace for the treadmill and gobble up competitors that cannot keep up. Farmers who were once autonomous essentially become wage laborers, producing for conglomerates and bound to the conglomerate for resources.[i]
The dairy industry is deceptive. Most Intensive Livestock Operations like hog and poultry producers are corporations, and ownership is easily determined. The Dairy industry has manipulated a tool once used by dairy farmers to aid market competition: cooperatives. Seen from the outside, dairy farms seem autonomous, however, the contract arrangements between the cooperatives today reflect vertical integration in the dairy industry. The Dairy Producers of New Mexico tout that its individual dairies are family owned, but product is distributed by co-operatives.[ii] Land O Lakes is a dairy cooperative. Ten cooperatives produced half the nations milk in 1998.[iii]
[i] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
[ii] Dairy Producers of New Mexico. FAQ. http://www.nmdairy.org/faq1.htm
[iii] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001. Economic Research Service/USDA. Agricultural Outlook, 9/00.
Economic Research Service/USDA. Agricultural Outlook, 9/00.
64. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development This benefits the cooperatives immensely in that lagoon breaches, antibiotic contamination and other environmental costs become the burden of the individual producer not the cooperative.[iv]
Land O Lakes said, in 1993, that it expected 500 locals to mere in 5 years.[v]
Suiza Foods, self-proclaimed largest fluid milk processor, made a meteoric rise to the top. It entered the dairy business in 1993 by purchasing Suiza Dairy Corporation. By 1996 the corporation made 39 additional dairy acquisitions. Suiza received considerable attention when it formed a joint venture with the cooperative Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), called Suiza Dairy Group
Although it is called a joint venture, Suiza owns 67 percent of Suiza Dairy Groups stock (and) manages the operation
With the combining of these two firms, they control 70 percent of the fluid milk processing and distribution in 13 Northeastern states.[vi]
[iv] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
[v] Hendrickson, Mary; Heffernan, William; Howard, Philip and Heffernan, Judith. Consolidation in Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System. Dept. of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. 2001.
[vi] ibid.
65. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Vertical integration in agriculture allows the monoliths to dominate the entire food-value chain. Vertical Integration formally connects retailers back to the production and processing stages of the food system.[i] Kroger and Safeway now operate their own dairy processing facilities. These companies are now seeking long term contracts to ensure national retailing capacity. Most processors now see the retail firms as their customer.[ii]
Like the technology treadmill, labor is consistently removed from production, reducing the need for local input and, vice versa, a need to economically support social institutions.
According to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), vertical integration has four primary benefits:
costs are lowered by improving productivity,
it insures quality from milk production to manufactured goods,
markets and risks are stabilized, and finally,
consumer demand maybe more quickly addressed.[iii]
[i] Hendrickson, Mary; Heffernan, William; Howard, Philip and Heffernan, Judith. Consolidation in Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System. Dept. of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. 2001.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Vertical Coordination of Agriculture in Farming-Dependent Areas. www.cast-science.org. (2001).
66. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Production contracts like those between dairy cooperatives and producers entrench the cooperatives monopoly powers. The contractor will supply feed, cows, antibiotics, management organization, practice guidelines and set production levels.[i]
Efficiency through vertical coordination creates decreasing commodity supply prices, yet does nothing to lower manufactured product prices for cheese, ice cream, yogurt or butter.
A price scissor occurs, binding the producer to wage labor conditions by keeping milk prices low, but increasing profits for the corporate-owned cooperative, which benefits by increasing demand for processed commodities.
The report by CAST actually recommends this process for the producer because the contract will be recognized by lending institutions. It states that, Many lenders are more willing to lend to construct production facilities for a low-income producer with a multiyear production contract than to an independent producer perennially subject to market volatility. Thus, for many farming-dependent areas of the nation, the most promising option for job and income expansion is through production contracts, which need not imply megafarms, factory farms, or environmental degradation.[ii]
[i] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Vertical Coordination of Agriculture in Farming-Dependent Areas. www.cast-science.org. (2001).
[ii] ibid.
67. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Here arises a key tool with which mega-dairies can occupy communities that may have low levels of education and socio-economic resources. By reading the CAST statement, a producer would actually think improvements to her farm may improve access to the market, however, the producer will be able to produce more milk with less labor cost, driving down price and removing jobs from her community.
Profits will not greatly increase because she is still absorbing environmental, remedial costs, and paying prices for inputs like feed and medicine that are set by the cooperative. Farm values for general agricultural output in 1997 were $120 million, but production costs exceeded $189 billion, according to Tad Williams of the Americans for Democratic Action Fund.
In reality, Many farmers are unable to compete in a market where costs rise continually for what they must buy, like seeds, fertilizer and equipment, while prices for what they produce are kept low by the small number of processors who control the market.[i] The minimum number of hectares needed to sustain a living increases because profits per area stay low. Land then conglomerates into the hands of wealthy corporations who have the ability to purchase large tracts of land.
They overcome the low profit per hectare trap precisely by owning vast areas which add up to good profits in total, even if they represent very little on a per hectare basis.[ii]
[i] Williams, Tad. The Corruption of American Agriculture. Americans for Democratic Action Fund. (no date provided).
[ii] Rosset, Peter M. Policy Breif No. 4: The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture. Food First/the Institute for Food and Development Policy and Transmational Institute. September 1999.
68. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development As Median Farm Size increases
(4 to 6,709 acres), average net out put drops from $1,400/acre to $12/acre. Rosset, Peter M. Policy Brief #4. The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm agriculture In the Context of Global Trade Negotiations. 9/99. Accessed 4/11/03.Rosset, Peter M. Policy Brief #4. The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm agriculture In the Context of Global Trade Negotiations. 9/99. Accessed 4/11/03.
69. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Money is made through subsidies. Aid comprised nearly half of total farm income in 2000 based on programs to stop farmers from going bankrupt due to low prices.[i]
The 1996 Farm Bill shifted subsidy purpose from offsetting market changes and disaster potential to income payments to mesh with international trade agreements. Taxpayer money is being used to aid conglomeration.
A recent study of federal farm data indicates that farm aid has gone to a host of individual and institutional investors, for whom farming is at most a minor sideline. Almost 63 percent of the $27 billion in federal farm subsidies doled out in 2000 went to just 10 percent of Americas farm owners, including multimillion-dollar corporations and government agencies.
Basing subsidy payments on farm acreage rather than financial need means that some of the wealthiest members of Congress received farm aid from farm programs they voted for. At least 20 Fortune 500 companies and more than 1,200 universities and government farms, including state prisons, received checks from the federal programs touted as a way to prop up needy farmers.[ii]
[i] Mittal, Anuradha and Kawaai, Mayumi. Backgrounder: Freedom to Trade? Trading Away American Family Farms. Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. 2001. http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2001/f01v7n4.html. accessed 5/1/03.
[ii] ibid.
70. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO) like large-scale dairies control a distinct information advantage over the rural community. The party with the least information about costs is most likely to have those costs shifted in its direction.[i]
The dairy will attempt to hide its profit only goals with promises of jobs and positive economic impacts for the community. The dairy operation creates and proposes the contract, forcing the community representatives to decipher its meaning. Such a contract is likely to increase the profits of the ILO by shifting the operating costs of the ILO to the closest residents around its operation.[ii]
Considering that the community has already been marginalized to some extent, community officials will most likely be looking for only what they want to see: dollar signs, and possibly for their own pockets. A community being approached by the massive dairy will most likely have little democratic, community input as Goldschmidt noticed in the case of Arvin, California.
[i] Weida, William. A Summary of the Regional Economic Effects of CAFOs. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2001.
[ii] ibid.
71. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development Kern County, California is a major world dairy producing area, and the communitys battle with industry expansion illustrates how industry wins over officials, but not necessarily the residents.
In 2002, an additional 2,800-cow dairy was added to an abused landscape. The Planning Commission approved the dairy, stating, They have jumped through every hoop we have asked them, yet public opinion greatly outweighed another dairy.[i] The region has some of the worst air quality standards in the United States.
Miss Tulare County, a representative of the states largest dairy producing region drew the following question during her pageant interview: What do we have too much of in the United States? Her answer was a slap in the face for the dairy promoters: In the United States right now, I think we have too much pollution, because not enough people are aware of the problems that will occur to the ozone layer if we do not start controlling the pollution now. I know here in Tulare County, they are working very hard to reduce the risk of pollution increasing by limiting the number of dairies. That would be great to keep the United States and the people in the United States healthy.[ii]
[i] McHenry, Davin. Kern County, Calif., Planning Commission Approves Disputed Dairy. The Bakersfield Californian. 2002.
[ii] Griswold, Lewis. Miss Tulare Sounds Off on Dairies. The Fresno Bee. 2003.
72. Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development According to the USDA, much of what Goldshmidt found is true. Peter Rosset of Food First, a progressive think tank promoting sustainable agriculture, cites the Department of Agricultures National Commission on Small Farms. The commission released a report in 1998 listing the public virtues of small farms:
Small farms, diverse in ownership, cropping systems, culture and traditions contribute to biodiversity and the rural landscape.
They manage natural resources in ways that are beneficial to society; investment in small farms will improve the nations natural resources.
Decentralized ownership produces economic opportunity for the region. Farmers are more likely to rely on the community for supplies.
Small farmers have a connection with food, and communities around farms have a connection with the farmer.[i]
[i] Rosset, Peter M. Policy Breif No. 4: The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture. Food First/the Institute for Food and Development Policy and Transmational Institute. September 1999.
73. The World Bank and Dairy Production As stated earlier, most races representing many ethnicities across the globe cannot digest dairy products. The World Bank, however, believes that dairy production can be a viable way to alleviate poverty in developing countries.
Contrary to the research conducted by Goldschmidt and his contemporaries, the World Bank states that, A focus on poverty reduction and increasing privatization are among the changes that may affect livestock development
[i] A 2001 report on Livestock Development makes generalizations that appear to benefit the rural poor, but the one-sided approach shows little actual concern for the people.
For example, The World Bank says that studies show children in Kenya, Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua and China were taller, due to increased animal fat and protein consumption.[ii] The question remains, at what cost?
Intensive livestock production will seriously deplete water and land resources, not to mention the other ill health effects that children may suffer just to be taller. Technological inputs like vaccines are recommended, and judicious management of species composition,[iii] in terms of wild life surrounding the farms indicate western investment (and expected returns), and removal of species that may compromise biodiversity in some areas.
[i] DeHaan, Schillhorn, Brandenburg, et al. Livestock Development: Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security. Directions in Development. The World Bank. 2001.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] ibid.
74. The World Bank and Dairy Production Most recommendations from the World Bank revolve around the same development models used in the United States. Vertical integration and co-operatives are seen as beneficial in purchasing feed, animals and technological advancement.
The industrial system is suggested as a way to preserve biodiversity by intensifying land use. The public sector is given the opportunity to try and mitigate environmental problems. Environmental costs, according to the report, should be included in price.[i]
These recommendations are based simply on market performance and increasing debt, not the real lives of communities. Vertically integrating dairy production in developing countries will inevitably make them dependent upon corporate interests for feed, antibiotics, pollution control technology, animals, and hormones. Whatever autonomy still exists will be wiped away, making farmers into wage labor with little opportunity for individuals to increase their capital.
Trends suggest that six or fewer global food retailers will evolve over the next few years. Most of them will likely be European-based transnational firms.[ii]
[i] DeHaan, Schillhorn, Brandenburg, et al. Livestock Development: Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security. Directions in Development. The World Bank. 2001.
[ii] Hendrickson, Mary; Heffernan, William; Howard, Philip and Heffernan, Judith. Consolidation in Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System. Dept. of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. 2001.
75. Conclusion Capitalist models of production are inconsistent with the carrying capacity of the earth, yet this is ignored in the consuming goal to out compete and accumulate wealth. It would be easy to replace dairy in this paper with any other resource we humans use.
Without curbing consumption rates environmental disasters will continue to occur, destroying human health and draining resources away from communities trying to escape from poverty. Poverty will always exist as long as capital can be hoarded by a few large corporations who will certainly never relinquish anything or change their practices unless forced to do so. It is important for the public to decide what type of food production system we prefer, based on all sound data, and design policies to implement a new system.[i] The public needs to have the ability to determine who produces our food and how it is produced. It is our bodies, our nourishment, our communities that are affected.
[i] Hendrickson, Mary; Heffernan, William; Howard, Philip and Heffernan, Judith. Consolidation in Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System. Dept. of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. 2001.
76. Conclusion The American people agree. In a recent study from North Carolina State entitled, Food from Our Changing World: the Globalization of Food and How Americans Feel About It, researchers found:
71 percent would pay more for food grown locally, as well as pay more for foods that do not harm the environment; and
70 percent trust farmers for food safety recommendations versus 20 percent trusting elected officials and 11 percent trusting business executives.
77 percent want government policies to help family farms.
Only 26 percent are willing to eat biotech foods, and most of those surveyed are undecided about their safety.
92 percent surveyed feel genetically modified foods should be labeled.[i]
The dairy industrys polluting, intrusive production of a product no human needs to consume, aided by a racist marketing campaign instituted by the federal government is a perfect example of how humanity will consistently take a back seat to corporate desires.
[i] Wimberley, Ronald; Reynolds, William Neal; Vander Mey, Brenda, et al. Food From Our Changing World: The Globalization of Food and How Americans Feel About It. North Carolina State University, 2003.
