Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
CONTACT: Environmental Groups |
Groups Challenge Bush Administration's Factory Farm Exemption
Midnight rule leaves communities dangerously unaware about emissions from animal waste
WASHINGTON - January 15 - In a lawsuit filed today against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a coalition of groups challenged a last minute Bush Administration rule that exempts factory farms from federal laws requiring them to alert government officials when they release unsafe levels of toxic emissions into the surrounding community.
The environmental law firm Earthjustice filed the suit on behalf of the groups, arguing that the exemption will harm people living and working near factory farms. Earthjustice is representing the Waterkeeper Alliance, Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project, The Humane Society of the United States, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future and Center for Food Safety.
Factory farms, formally known as Confined Animal Feeding Operations or CAFOs, are large-scale livestock facilities that confine large numbers of animals in relatively small spaces. A large factory farm may contain upwards of 1,000 cattle, 2,500 hogs or 125,000 chickens. Such facilities generate a massive amount of urine and feces, which is commonly liquefied and either stored under the facility or nearby in open air lagoons. This waste is known to release high levels of toxic pollutants into the air such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.
"These massive animal confinement facilities operate in complete disregard for the welfare of animals and the environment, and should be doing more, not less, to inform local citizens of the dangers they create for our communities," said Jonathan R. Lovvorn of The Humane Society of the United States.
Like other industrial facilities, federal law has long required factory farms to notify government officials when toxic pollution levels exceed public safety thresholds. The Bush Administration's last-minute rulemaking now exempts factory farms from filing these reports. Not surprisingly, the rule change was sought by the industry following successful litigation against factory farms that held them accountable for their widespread failure to comply with environmental laws.
"Factory farms commonly release unsafe levels of toxic air pollution that can be dangerous for workers and nearby residents," said Earthjustice attorney Keri Powell. "The Bush Administration's parting gift to factory farms is to help them guard that dirty secret."
An increasing body of scientific evidence shows that ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other factory farm emissions pose serious threats to human health and the environment. Among other problems, exposure to factory farm air pollution can cause respiratory illness, lung inflammation and increased vulnerability to asthma.
"These corporate agricultural operations have the know-how to comply with the simple reporting rules that EPA is trying to repeal and ought to be required to do so," said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project.
The rise of CAFOs has been a primary factor in the decline of small family farms. The number of family farms declined by 39 percent between 1969 and 2002. By 2002, only 25 percent of all farms in the nation were family farms. Meanwhile, the number of factory farms has jumped from about 3,600 factory farms decades ago to almost 12,000.
"Protecting people's health from toxic air pollution is more important than shielding factory farms from right-to-know laws," said Ed Hopkins of the Sierra Club.
The reporting data is crucial for communities struggling with pollution from factory farms.
In one high-profile instance, EPA relied on emissions data reported by Ohio's largest egg producer to address dangerously high concentrations of hazardous air pollutants released into a neighboring community, securing a $1.4 million settlement for local air pollution controls.
"Factory farm pollution is destroying the economic viability of rural communities," said Kim Snell-Zarcone, staff attorney for PennFuture. "In areas with uncontrolled pollution, local families and businesses leave, and no new investors move in. If we are ever to revive our economy, we must have a clean environment."
"Wastes from factory farming significantly contribute to global warming and create dangerous food pathogens," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "As shown by the recent passage of Proposition 2 in California, the public wants more regulation on these cruel and unsustainable operations, not the blank check recently given by the outgoing Bush Administration."
While the exemptions apply specifically to factory farm air emissions, such emissions pollute the land and the water as well. For example, ammonia emitted into the air by a factory farm quickly combines with atmospheric water and falls back to earth as acid rain, poisoning water resources and killing vegetation.
"EPA's new exemption essentially subsidizes the factory farm industry by helping to shield it from responsibility for the water and air pollution that it forces on neighboring communities and the environment," said Hannah Connor of the Waterkeeper Alliance.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
A report showing the huge volume of ammonia emissions from poultry operations in the top 10 poultry-producing states: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub567.cfm
A report detailing the dangerous impacts of emissions from animal waste:
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs/CAFOAirEmissions_white_paper.pdf
9 Comments so far
Show AllBrad,
Damn. Every time I think my posts are too long and I’m going to shutup and skip ‘unnecessary’ details, I’m sorry. But I think you have me confused with someone else.
Not sure what you meant by ‘an extreme utopian way’ or ‘such views’, but please note that I didn’t advocate a vegan diet at all, or a vegetarian diet FOR all. I’m quite aware that in some ecosystems grazing’s the most ecological use of land. In many others mixed animal-plant food production is best.
Nobody was advocating taking fat-soluble vitamins away from children, so slow down and stop beating straw sheepherding dogs. While we certainly don’t need more commodities, particularly corn and soy, we also don’t need more fat. Most people in the US eat far too much food, far too much meat, milk and fat, and not enough fresh fruits, vegetables and grains. They don’t miss out on fat-soluble vitamins because they don’t eat enough meat; they miss out because they eat over-processed, over-transported over-sugared high fat food product some TV ad has convinced them is food. Intelligent vegetarianism would be a superb alternative for such people—a vast improvement if they’re SADing and a vast improvement in most third world countries that would help them without causing unsightly ecological destruction. Note that I said ‘intelligent’ vegetarianism, which naturally would include all the fat-soluble vitamins needed, as my lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet has for 30 years—and which intelligent vegan diets do as well.
“Leading humane/animal welfare organizations support the policies I've listed. “
“I don't see any vegan organizations in the lead on these many issues of justice and ecology that I've raised. What I see is mainly upper class personal spiritual practices.”
SOME humane and animal welfare organizations support the diet you defend. Others don’t. Still others point to it as part of the problem. I suppose you also don’t see any cop watch organizations leading the way on issues of ecology either, although the members may support ecological ideas and are more likely to live ecologically and be members of other organizations which do lead the way on justice and ecology issues than the average person. But ecology isn’t the purpose of cop watch organizations and shouldn’t be cause for criticizing them.
Personally, I think the more personal spirituality practiced among the upper classes the better. They as a class could certainly use some improvement. And I do support the Heifer Project—where it is ecologically appropriate. In most places it makes more sense to support people’s general and nutritional education and their ability to grow their own vegetarian diet, within the constraints of their local ecosystem, culture and personal preferences.
I’m going to take a few leaps here so feel free to ask for clarification. Trauma and developmental problems in our individual and collective history have caused splits in us—the way we perceive good and evil, the fact that we have such conflicting impulses and contentious politics just to mention a few examples. Our archetypes—those deep psychological image/patterns on which we base our beliefs, words, thoughts and actions, also get split, and that causes huge problems. The King archetype, for example, a principle of benevolent order and just organization within us and without, gets split into tyrant and weakling, and we either vacillate between the 2 or end up with some people acting out 1 and others acting out the other. (Witness Republicans and Democrats for the past 7 ½ years.) Those splits also manifest in the world, and we have problems because of it: the dissociated, unconscious idealism that causes free marketeers to wreak their damage, and our splitting of the traditional small farm into animal feedlots and monoculture plant cropping, as you point out (as I have before). And once we have a split, we enter the realm of Severeid’s First Law, (“The chief cause of problems is solutions”) where every split-generated and split-accepting solution generates more problems. I mention the psychology because when you try to solve a psychological problem in the realm of politics or philosophy (which is just unconscious personal psychology writ with a fancy pen) you fail. It can only be solved psychologically, although political actions may be required to enable the psychological solutions. Those solutions may also need to happen in other realms—media, political symbolism, street theater, and modern shamanism, eg.
Pardon me for drawing conclusions but you seem to have some resentment against vegans, among others, and it seems to be affecting your perception of me as well as your posts. If my memory serves, you have posted other times, always mentioned farm price floors, and seem to have a preoccupation with a very narrow range of subjects and views, and see almost everything though the lens of that issue. Not sure why you’re mentioning these things here; you haven’t said how they relate, except you dislike people who take certain positions and you suspect they’re the moral equivalent of bolsheviks or something. Vegans, in other words. Urban vegans, no less. Please don’t let your personal preferences, occupation and other prejudices interfere with your perception of facts—like these: industrial meat production is a major contributor to climate change, and without knowing the math offhand I can’t believe we could provide the world with US levels of meat consumption using sustainable farming practices. In any case, a vegetarian diet can be produced with far less energy, water and other resource use, and greenhouse gas production, than a meaty diet.
Sorry if that makes some uncomfortable. The oil crisis alarm went off in 1973 and we’ve been hitting the snooze button ever since, and now it’s time to skip the 3-course breakfast and the half-hour shower, get the hell out the door and get to work. Some sacrifices need to made, and who more deserving to make them than the people who have had—and eaten—far too much for far too long?
Thank you for this longer clarification. I have nothing against short posts. They often lead to further discussion to clear things up. Fine.
In comments, misunderstandings often occur, repeatedly, and it takes a while to get the message through from the encoder to the decodeer. We should never see it as bad that things need more clarification. It's a process. It takes time. And people come out if very differing paradigms. Don't let it frustrate you too much.
Your new comments clearly show that your view (from the short start) was not what I've called utopian or "an extreme utopian way," (ie. no livestock anywhere). Common Dreams recently has articles from PETA. I'm calling for what I see as a more balanced approach, one that reconciles more values. You support the Heifer project. But do you claim that some Heifer projects are inappropriate? Where? What specifics? I guess you're saying most of the time it's not appropriate, or not the better option (ie. "In most places it makes more sense to" find a "vegetarian solution). I disagree, but I've focused (in my previous comments) on their jobs (economics/poverty), not diet. (More on my view diet views below)
(Ok, in this spirit, then,) where are you saying vegetarian children will get their fat soluable vitamins? (You've already answered this for "most people.")
To clarify: my claims of support from "humane," "animal welfare" groups is regarding the importance of livestock in sustainability, (in farming systems, etc.) as in my other comments. I was not referring to diet.
I'm all for more spirituality. The point, advocating for practical solutions for the world's poor (ie. the value added income from livestock).
I don't fully understand what is and isn't a "cop watch organization."
As implied above, I support your decision "to take a few leaps," and I find your discussion of the impacts on us of "Trauma and developmental problems in our individual and collective history" to be interesting reading, as I study similar topics. "Splits," yes. I see unhealthy, unreconcilable polarities tyrant/weakling and healthy reconcilable ones (asserter/cooperator), as well as a healthy balance in the center. See Everett Shostrom, Man the Manipulator for a great pop psychology version, and Charles Hampden-Turner, Sane Asylum (and it's technical appendix for a wonkier version). But "the King archetype?" See Lewis Mumford, The Myth of the Machine, on "divine kingship" in our main mythology. I don't follow: "the dissociated, unconscious idealism that causes free marketeers to wreak their damage." Severeid’s First Law? Nice. I once wrote a humorous piece on Land Grant System (agricultural universities and extension) solutions for farmers, using the unfortunately/fortunately, back and fourth humor frame.
I eat vegan periodically and enjoy it. It makes sense to me that, given what animal factories have done, people are turning away from meat in droves. I'm not surprised.
On where I "seem to be" psychologically and otherwise and my "perception," and my "personal preferences, occupation and other prejudices:" I find that drawing such conclusions is common in communication (encoding/decoding). Clarifying it (on both ends) is normal, understandable. You, of course, very appropriately said "seem" By the way, however, reading between your lines, I certainly connect those comments with your previous paragraph on "trauma," "individual and collective," which we've had plenty of in agriculture. But note that I've never said a couple of things you attribute to me, that I "dislike people who take certain positions and you suspect they’re the moral equivalent of bolsheviks or something," (whatever that means) including specifically "Vegans, in other words. Urban vegans, no less." That's not what I encoded on my end. I also don't follow anyone's "occupation" as necessarily a "prejudice." It's certainly a lens and a frame. Ok, this is nit picky. Ok, it's good to ask for clarifications on perceptions, and it takes a while to pick through it, back and forth.
On your comments about my emotions ("Please don’t let your personal preferences") as "interfere"-anc" with "facts" about the problems of "industrial meat production:" I don't believe I've ever posted anything anywhere suggesting I'm not aware of that problem!
Those working in manual labor on farms can't skip the farm breakfast.
On urban veganism. I like Wendell Berry's chapter on the ecology crisis as a crisis of agriculture in his book The Unsettling of America. He presents a frame for looking at things like this that you may not be familiar with.
I won't repeat my comments on livestock as a key to sustainability (google my name and "vegetarian" for more detail).
On a "very narrow" focus on "price floors." It's the one multitrillion dollar farm/food issue. It's with WTO issues as the one core issue. Those who share values of justice are divided on this, based upon false info, yet the farm bill could reopen within 2 years. Half of us don't even know the issue exists, but work on the false issue of subsidies. And millions starve. Thus my focus and intensity.
Look for more on fats in future posts.
I really appreciate all of your comments that risk making me feel "uncomfortable," and have tried to reply in kind.
Ok, let's remember how many progressives (falsely) claimed that President Bush was better on the Farm Bill? Environmental Working Group was, and still is, a leader in spreading this false information: "352 Editorials Call for Farm Bill Reform," Common Dreams>Progressive Community>NewsWire, 2,11/08; now "477 Editorials Call For Farm Bill Reform" at http://www dot ewg dot org/farmeditorials. "Ironically, the Bush Administration comes across as far more progressive and reform minded than the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate when it comes to matters of equity and fairness in subsidy payments."
In fact, there was never anything progressive in President Bush's stand on farm subsidies, as he never supported price floors, supply management, price ceilings and/or commodity reserves. So on the major issues related to farm prices (farm depression, food crisis, rural development, animal factories, ethanol, high fructose corn syrup, soy oil) he empasized the smokescreen of subsidies and did nothing to help the situation. (But then again, neither did EWG and most other urban progressives.
You meant "climate-crisis-stopping local organic vegan diet," right?
Let's not go to extremes. Life isn't utopia. Trying to fix everything in an extreme utopian way causes more damage than it does good. It's like NRA going to extremes on gun control. Livestock are crucial for many environmental, economic and social issues. They can safely graze on highly erodible areas (with policies in moderation). We need more pastures and hay ground, not less. We need more diverse "resource conserving crop rotations, not vegetable monocultures, which is what we would have more of under vegan utopianism. We need more saturated fats from meat and milk (organic grassfed), not less, and we need less of the unhealthy vegetable fats, (soy, corn, etc.) not more. We don't need any more young people missing their crucial fat soluable vitamins and other nutrients by listening to such views. We need to help struggling LDC farmers around the world to get back the value added livestock production that CAFOs have obtained with our below cost policies (no price floors or supply management with subsidies as a smokescreen issue leading mainstream media and progressives to totally ignore the issue).
Leading humane/animal welfare organizations support the policies I've listed.
We need to support "The Heifer Project," (fishing pole, not a fish) with it's milk, eggs, meat and draft power for the people worldwide who have been devastated by the U.S. policy of losing money on farm commodity exports, decade after decade.
I don't see any vegan organizations in the lead on these many issues of justice and ecology that I've raised. What I see is mainly upper class personal spiritual practices.
Utopia is trying to force destiny into a Box. It's what Bush tried with free markets in Iraq, as Naomi Klein has exposed (and dictators around the world). Consider the words of Lewis Mumford for deeper wisdom:
“Most ethical philosophies have sought to isolate and standardize the goods of life, and to make one or another set of purposes supreme. They have looked upon pleasure or social efficiency or duty, upon imperturbability or rationality or self-annihilation as the chief crown of a disciplined and cultivated spirit. This effort to whittle down valuable conduct to a single set of consistent principles and ideal ends does not do justice to the nature of life, with its paradoxes, its complicated processes, its internal conflicts, its sometimes unresolvable dilemmas.”
"The Falacy of Systems," from "The Conduct of Life," also in Saturday Review of Literature, XXXII (October 1, 1949), 8-9.
Actually CAFOs are great examples of utopianism. You try to put reality in a box. You take livestock off the land and put them into one giant mechanized system. It's Lewis Mumford's megamachine, (and see Mumford's chapter, "Progress as Science Fiction," in "The Pentagon of Power.") As Wendell Berry said, you take a solution and divide it into two problems (from dispersed livestock on diversified, sustainable farms to exess manure causing polution and farmers paying through the nose for inorganic replacement fertilizers, but with less and less carbon (organic matter to protect the soil). Wendell Berry has great info on this in the chapter on the future in the Unsettling of America where he challenges utopian visions pictured in National Geographic in 1970. (And in about 2003 National Geographic's big food piece joined Berry in seeing feedlots not as utopia, but as dystopia.
You meant "climate-crisis-stopping local organic vegan diet," right?
I absolutely did. I usually use the phrase 'climate catastrophe', since 'GW', although it reminds us of GW Bush's contribution to the problem, calls to mind for deniers and uneducated people pleasant days in meadows and reduced winter heating bills and makes our job harder. Not sure why that momentary lapse...
And as far as vegan/vegetarian, both are reasonable alternatives, depending on culture, personal preference, and above all, local ecosystem needs. You and Brad, trying to put words in mouth--as well as soymilk ice cream and fast food cheesburgers... please stop. I'm satisfied with my diet, for me and for the rest of the world. you know, live the life you want to save, and all that...
on J4zonian's "climate-crisis-stopping local organic vegan diet,"
No one's trying to put food in your mouth, so there's no question of a need to "please stop" that. To suggest that there this is being done is to yourself put words in peoples' mouths. It's when you make claims about stopping world crises that you're being challenged. This is a public matter and needs to be discussed.
Thank you, participating groups.
Step 2: how about a global-warming stopping local organic vegetarian diet as the standard for all of us who care? Someone has to lead the way.
And while we're at it, why don't we cancel NAIS? I'm sure with the ultra-liberal Mr. Obama in the White House and all his hippie ag appointees these will all be easy to accomplish.