CHAPTER 7: CONTROVERSIES ABOUT LOCAL FOODS

What is the local foods controversy?

As Romania exited the USSR in 1989 and began integrating with western Europe, it returned the land comprising its collective farms to their original owners. As they transitioned more towards a market economy, the region of Transylvania did the unexpected regarding milk. Instead of relying on inexpensive milk produced by modern and distant farms, they developed a market for local milk and a special reverence for traditional farming methods. Local milk was valued higher not simply because it was thought to be of higher quality, but because it represented a traditional culture Transylvania did not want to see wither in the wake of globalization. This culture has a long tradition of rearing livestock, and some suspect (due to their high rates of lactose tolerance in adulthood) they were among the first to consume sheep milk.

Instead of adopting modern machinery to cut and bale hay from large tracts of land quickly, they grasped their hand-held rakes and made hay as their ancestors did hundreds of years ago, hay they would then transport with a horse and cart to a barn attic. A farm of only eight acres and a few milking cows is typical, and though the system is inefficient by modern standards, it provides about 60% of the country’s milk.

Farmers milk their own cows and then transport it (often in buckets) to a cooperative where it is mixed with other local milk and sold at much higher prices than non-local milk. Why? The main reason seems to be a fondness for their traditional culture, and it has as much to do with the landscape as it does the milk quality. Transylvanians adore a hayfield teeming in color and plant diversity, and their vocabulary has many more terms to describe landscape than other cultures. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are disliked partly because they kill the flowers and other plants that grow naturally with grass in the meadows. When Transylvanians buy local milk they acquire far more than the milk itself: they are paying to preserve their past. Modern agriculture with its large and efficient production methods may produce cheaper food but it changes the community, a change they avoid by willingly paying a higher price for local milk.293 Because they believe in the traditional way of producing milk, they believe this local milk to be “real whole milk,” though it is unclear the extent to which they believe the milk to be of higher quality.

Because it is real whole milk…a piece of the past which their city life has left behind. —A Transylvanian’s answer as to why cities were paying higher prices for local milk. Nicolson, Adam. July 2013. “Hay. Beautiful.” National Geographic. Page 124.

This rather romantic picture of local foods is not just held by Transylvanians. For many of the same reasons, some Americans and Europeans refer to themselves as locavores, meaning they prefer to purchase food from small, nearby farmers. For some this means visiting farmers markets, or Amish food markets where, like the dairy farms in Transylvania, antiquated farming methods are used. Others belong to a network of community-supported agriculture, where one becomes something of a part-owner in the farm. Members pay a subscription fee and receive a share of whatever the farm is harvesting at the time.

The qualities of local foods are rarely questioned, and are usually assumed from the start to be more virtuous. This seems to be the case at colleges. Our university holds an annual creativity award,

60

which in 2008 went to two individuals proposing a “farm to university” dining program. The proposal was selected because it was assumed to benefit the local economy and environment, not because it was shown to.294

My university has a sustainability coordinator whose main message, as far as I can tell, is to go out and tell people to buy food grown locally…Why? What’s bad about tomatoes from Pennsylvania as opposed to Ohio? —Vedder, Richard. August 24-25, 2013. “The Real Reason College Costs So Much.” The Wall Street Journal. A9.

Before Michael Pollan there was the author Wendell Berry, who expressed an admiration for the traditional farming styles used by the Amish and urged us to develop closer attachments to local farms, promising a stronger local community would blossom. Food, Berry claims, cannot be separated from the region it is grown, for when you purchase a food item you are indirectly approving of the economic system in which it was created. 295

There is no controversy about an individual wanting to develop an attachment to local agriculture. The controversy begins when locavores attempt to argue that local foods are superior in all ways to non-local foods. They claim it helps the local economy prosper. They claim it is better for the environment. They claim local foods are healthier. They make all these claims with very little evidence. We now observe these three controversies and then conclude with our perspective of what local foods really represent.

Are local foods healthier?

There are some advantages and disadvantages of local foods. If you can find fresher, better tasting fruits and vegetables from a local source (like a farmers market) than a grocery store, then local foods can be a proxy for higher quality foods. Most foodies will attest to the fact that the best tomatoes are always found at farmers markets. Because these fruits and vegetables undergo very little processing and are sold locally, there are no big machines and factories, and no massive distribution system is needed. It is everything but “corporate” food, and for some individuals this means a lot.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that all local foods are healthier. Frozen fruits and vegetables are only slightly less nutritious than their fresh counterparts,296 while often being cheaper, more convenient, and more available. Canned foods can still be very nutritious, and given their lower cost may provide some households with better access to healthy foods than relying on local, fresh, or frozen produce.297 While it is common to deem all processed and precooked foods as unhealthy, let us not forget the contribution frozen dinners like Weight Watchers Smart Ones and Lean Cuisine have made to helping people lose weight.298 Let us acknowledge that the salads at Chick-fil-A are impressive in both their taste, variety of greens, and nutrition. Local foods may be on average healthier than non-local foods—we don’t know, and it depends on the time and place. What is certain is that labeling non-local food as “unhealthy” is unfair.

To the extent that local foods are healthier and better tasting, the rise of the local food movement is a step in the direction of better food. In the sections below we critique two claims often made by locavores regarding economic development and the environment, but we urge the reader to remember that these critiques are separate from the issue of food quality. Even if the following two sections make the reader skeptical about local foods’ ability to enhance the local economy and the environment, they are still justified in buying local, so long as they believe the food is of higher quality.

61

Do local foods have a smaller carbon footprint?

The answer is: it depends. Local food travels shorter distances between farmers and consumers, and so these smaller “food-miles” can result in less carbon emissions, leading some to believe that local food is better for the environment. Less food-miles does not mean less fuel consumption though. A car with a hybrid engine may use less gas to cover 100 miles than the same car with a non-hybrid engine covering only 75 miles, simply because the hybrid engine is more fuel-efficient. Likewise, even if Kroger grocery stores must cover more miles to deliver the same amount of lettuce to stores across the country (compared to a system where each store obtains lettuce from local farms), they can better afford efficient trucks and are less likely to send trucks partially loaded. The Economic Research Service conducted case studies of various food distribution systems, and sometimes local foods resulted in less fuel per lb of food shipped, and sometimes it did not. In some cases, local foods required less food-miles but resulted in higher fuel consumption (per lb of food).299

Imported food could even have fewer food-miles. Though food may travel fewer miles from the farm to the farmers market the consumers must travel extra miles to patron the farmers market in addition to the grocery store, and these extra miles can result in a larger carbon footprint. Moreover, since personal automobiles are relatively inefficient compared to large tractor trailers, the best way to reduce carbon emissions may be to transport food from many distant locations to one grocery store, rather than have each shopper drive themselves to many different local food outlets.300

If we truly care about our carbon footprint, we should be concerned with carbon emissions observed at every stage of food production, not just transportation. It would be absurd to only care about pollution emitted during transportation of food and show no concern for pollution at the stage of farm production. Over 80% of all carbon emissions of food occur at the farm and only 10% are emitted in transportation.301 By producing foods in the most efficient regions (e.g., pineapples in Thailand, lamb in New Zealand) the savings in energy at the farm level may lower the carbon footprint of food, even if that food requires greater food-miles. Or it may not—it just depends.302

It is impossible to determine whether local food is truly more environmentally friendly, but we do know that fossil fuels are both emitters of carbon and a large component of a business’ costs. If non-local lettuce is cheaper, that is a good sign that less fossil fuel was used, and thus a smaller carbon footprint results. Not even this rule is perfectly reliable though, as fossil fuels are just one of many costs involved in food production, and greenhouse gas emissions are not the only pollutant of concern. It is possible that a certain food can be cheaper and have a larger carbon footprint.

Does buying local foods stimulate the local economy?

It is true that spending dollars on imported food causes those dollars to leave the local economy, and that paying a local farmer $30 keeps that $30 (for a while) in the hands of your friends and neighbors. Buying local then seems to have an altruistic component, in that you are choosing to favor someone who lives close to you rather than a distant stranger. Many locavores thus argue that local foods are ethically superior because they provide economic support to those you know and favor. In addition, as that dollar paid to a local farmer circulates from one person to another in your area, your purchase of local foods acts as a local economic stimulus. One documentary on local foods has even claimed that spending one dollar on local food increases the region’s total income by five or more dollars.303 If this were true every person in the modern world could become much richer by simply purchasing only local foods. If that sounds too good to be true, it is.

62

A publication by the Union of Concerned Scientists has suggested that each dollar spent on local food generates an extra $0.78 in income (in addition to the $1 spent) to the region—a more modest number, but still deceiving.304 This organization took the $0.78 number from studies published in the scientific literature, one study even from our colleagues. Yet if you ask our colleagues they will explain that the number is deceiving. It does not account for the fact that money spent on non-local food also generates additional income. Moreover, these studies do not account for how changes in spending patterns alter the imports and exports associated with the region. Put simply, the studies referenced cannot actually measure the net effect of buying more local foods. Let us explain.

This “economic stimulus” argument is an economic argument, one that does not depend on local foods being of superior quality to non-local foods, and so we assume throughout this section that the quality of both foods is identical. The local economic stimulus argument is indeed an economic proposition, but one with little economic theory or evidence to support it.

A core tenet of economics is that voluntary trade increases the wealth of all trading parties, regardless of whether it is two countries trading, two states, two counties, or even two people. Economists discuss wealth gains from trade like biologists discuss evolution: as a fact. Any time citizens would like to import and export to other regions but cannot, their aggregate wealth falls.

The local stimulus argument claims that, instead of freely trading with others, we should only exchange goods and services with those who live a few miles from us. Regardless of whether we are talking about restricting all trade, all trade in food, or even some trade in food, the locavore wants us to restrict trade, and both economic theory and empirical evidence says that this lowers the total wealth in all regions.

This is counter-intuitive, as the idea of “keeping dollars local” just seems like it would be better for the local economy. Consider two arguments to the contrary. First, if the economic stimulus argument were true, then taking it to its logical extreme (which is one of the best ways to test logical propositions), it is better for Americans to only trade with people in their state—keeping the dollars local. It would also be better for Americans to trade only with people in their town—keeping their dollars local. It would also be better to trade only with people who live in their neighborhood— keeping dollars really local. Why not extend this to just one neighbor, or to deny yourself trade with anyone, that way your dollars never leave your pocket? Obviously, narrowing your opportunity for trade with others means you cannot have an iPad or any other advanced technology, and someone in North Dakota will never eat a pineapple. The local stimulus argument just isn’t logical.

The second argument counters the “keep dollars local” claim. All imports into and exports from a region must be equal in value, over time. American exports equal American imports when measured in dollars, and exports from a small French town equal imports into that town. This is a fact proven by the philosopher David Hume305 in the eighteenth century and is supported by economists today (note: countries are reported to run trade deficits and surpluses only because the measured exports and imports don’t count everything). This means that when you spend $100 on imported foods, that $100 does leave the town but another $100 returns to the town in the form of exports. So whenever you import food that money comes back to the economy, and all dollars essentially “stay local.” If this were not true any town would eventually collect all the money in the world or completely run out of money—something we never see happen.306 Take comfort, reader, that your money remains in the local economy regardless of whether you buy local or imported food.

63

This is an important issue because some influential organizations continue to push myths about local foods. The extension service at North Carolina State University urges its citizens to buy local because it will increase job opportunities and economic growth307 when in the university’s agricultural economics department they teach the opposite. Michael Pollan has suggested that we should force schools to acquire a portion of its foods within 100 miles,308 but local food is already an option for schools, and denying schools the option of importing foods simply makes it more difficult for them to access healthy foods within their budget constraints. If local foods were really cheaper and healthier, the schools would already be purchasing it. The Secretary of Agriculture under President Obama has even said that, in a perfect world, no region would import or export anything,309 a comment that could not be more opposite of basic economic principles. Anyone who believes that a “perfect world” would require Lockney, Texas (population: 2,056) to produce its own iPads or sugar has a very distorted grasp of economic principles.

In a perfect world, everything that was sold, everything that was purchased and consumed would be local, so the economy would receive the benefit of that… —Vilsack, Tom, Secretary of Agriculture. The Washington Post. February 11, 2009. “Tom Vilsack, The New Face Of Agriculture.” Accessed September 3, 2010 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/story/2009/02/10/ST2009021002624.html.

Is there any reason to buy local other than food quality?

In more recent years locavores have backed away from their claim that local food is better for the environment and local economy. They still make these assertions, but with less brio and more attention to other aspects of local foods. Even if spinach grown down the road is of the same quality but costs more, has a larger carbon footprint, and does not help the local economy, there is a reason we might want to encourage people to buy it. That reason has to do with our culture and attitudes towards food.

The locavore movement is not just about better shopping, but changing the food culture. They want us to think more about what we buy and its consequences, to take a greater interest in agriculture and food, to become involved in not just what we eat but what school children eat. They want us to mimic Transylvania by giving careful thought to the consequences of our food purchases. It is not their intentions that we source all our food locally, but only a proportion of it. With this cultural change locavores suspect that the modern world would begin to eat a healthier diet. They may very well be right.

Consider Will Allen, a retired professional basketball player, who observed how some neighborhoods simply do not have access to affordable, fresh, and healthy foods. Doing his part to remedy this problem, his organization constructs greenhouses where they grow organic vegetables for the local community. This is not a business, but a non-profit organization whose goal is to educate people about agriculture and healthy foods. In interviews with Allen and his fans they explain that they don’t promote locally grown foods for the sake of local foods, but to help people who are unfamiliar with fresh vegetables to experience what cucumbers, basil, and “real” tomatoes taste like.

Urban people’s interest in where their food comes from, and the quality of it—their worry about poisoned food, soil loss, toxicity, etc.—is a good thing…If we stick only with the “local food” part of the movement, it’s not going to amount to much. We’ve got to simultaneously talk about cultural change and land use more generally.

64

—Mary, Berry, Executive Director of The Berry Center. October 3, 2013. “Mary Berry is Fomenting an Agrarian Revolution.” Spotlight. Moyers & Company. Accessed October 6, 2013 at http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/03/mary- berry-is-fomenting-an-agrarian-revolution/.

What locavores are really trying to do is, in a way, to make Transylvanians out of us. If we can develop a similar love for agricultural landscapes and express an interest in how food is raised, it is thought we would eat better, love our food more, and become better stewards of our land. For those who identify with this sentiment, local food might be worth the higher price. It is, however, a poor reason to force people to buy local. Fortunately, most locavores are more interested in persuasion than force, and given the rising interest in farmers markets, community supported agriculture, and the like, they have helped us become more conscious about the foods we eat.

65

CHAPTER 8: CONTROVERSIES ABOUT LIVESTOCK

The well-being of livestock raised for food

How do you define animal welfare?

Most people are omnivores, and because they also have empathy for farm animals, they want livestock to live a pleasant life—or at least not suffer. Our research has revealed that 31% of Americans believe that livestock have a soul, and 64% believe that God wants humans to be good stewards of livestock. Only 28% say the feelings of animals are not important.310 Consumers express their altruism for animals in how they buy their food. Citizens express it in how they vote. Farmers and meat processors demonstrate it when they make large investments in better facilities and equipment to reduce animal stress, like those designed by Dr. Temple Grandin (as depicted in the HBO film that bears her name). Empathy is a constant concern for agricultural scientists as they research how to improve animal welfare while keeping food affordable, abundant, and safe.

Interest in animal welfare may be more pronounced today than ever before, but the interest was always present. Each religion has its own particular way of viewing livestock, but they all respect the animal in some way. A theory for the development of the Jewish custom of consuming only Kosher foods contends that the Jews sought to mimic the Garden of Eden when humans relied solely on fruit, as eating both meat and vegetables involved death.311 Medieval Christianity around 1,000 AD formed a movement called the Peace and Truth of God, which sought to protect livestock (as well as vulnerable people like orphans and widows) from violence by nobles.312 Hinduism developed a particular reverence for the cow, and some Buddhist sects believe animals harbor the souls of past and future humans, and thus should be treated with the same compassion.

Starting in the nineteenth century, the concern for animals led to the formation of animal advocacy groups. Animal protection agencies were first formed in Britain, which inspired Americans to form the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1866. This organization soon persuaded politicians to pass laws regarding how livestock are transported by rail. The laws set a precedent followed by animal advocates to this day.313

The 19th century also introduced a new moral philosophy, utilitarianism, which revolutionized how the educated think about animals. Most readers will attest that it was a vast improvement over the old one. In the seventeenth century the famed philosopher Descartes had argued that animals were mere machines, devoid of emotion. His entourage would beat animals in public and mock those who expressed empathy, and Descartes himself had no qualms about nailing a dog’s paws to a board and dissecting it while it was alive.314 Fast forward to 1823 and philosopher Jeremy Bentham is sketching out his concept of utilitarianism, arguing that the suffering of animals may indeed be of similar moral interest as the suffering of humans. It would take more than a century for this philosophy to impact how people think about animals, but its impact was eventually manifested in the writings of animal advocates and agricultural scientists alike.

The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny… But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail?…The question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?

66

—Bentham, Jeremy. 1823. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Second edition. Chapter 17. Oxford Publishing: London, UK.

Bentham’s utilitarianism philosophy, espousing the idea that public policy should be designed to maximize total happiness and minimize total suffering, would become especially important to Peter Singer. In his book Animal Liberation, Singer used utilitarianism to argue that most livestock production was immoral and that consumers should cease to eat such foods. It was this book, along with Ruth Harrison’s Animal Machines, that launched livestock welfare controversies in the 1960s and 70s, which are still debated today and discussed in this chapter.

Animal Liberation did not necessarily call for a vegan diet though. Singer’s particular version of utilitarianism suggested that the raising of livestock for food can be ethical if the animals are treated humanely. In a later book with Jim Mason, The Way We Eat, Singer takes the reader on a tour of various farms to help them distinguish between humane and inhumane food. So even though Singer is often cast as an extreme animal rightist, his general philosophy is in tune with the average American: that livestock raised for food should be treated humanely. Where Singer differs from the average American is in what constitutes “humane.”

Why is it that one person can deem a particular style of farming humane while another person dissents? Part of the disagreements arise because no one really knows what an animal is feeling. It must be inferred based on common-sense, biological measurements, and animal behavior—but widely differing conclusions emanate from those inferences. Three general schools have emerged on how animal welfare is measured. These are the (1) function-based (2) feeling-based and (3) nature- based schools.315 These different schools have provided a framework within which the public debate on the treatment of domesticated animals has taken place during the early twentieth century. The schools do not compete for legitimacy, as all are considered valid ways of measuring animal welfare. However, there is overlap between schools and many times, the importance given to each school will vary from person to person according to their philosophies, experiences, culture, and societal influences. Ultimately, animal welfare is best served when advocates combine the most rational features of each school, particularly where all three intersect.

It can be difficult for the average person to understand the modern livestock farm, but those who have pets understand more than they think, so we will use the analogy of caring for a dog to help readers understand how and why livestock industries raise livestock the way they do.

Humans care deeply for their pets. Many smokers say they are more likely to quit smoking for their dog’s health than their own.316 Lawyers have argued that pets be recognized as family in courts.317 Some Christians even baptize their pets.318 People certainly don’t have these feelings about cows, chickens, or hogs, but in some aspects it seems as if they do.

Most dog owners demonstrate their love by purchasing dog food scientifically tailored to their dog’s breed, age, and size, and they take them regularly to the veterinarian. These owners want their dogs to function well biologically; this is an example of the function-based school of animal welfare.

Likewise, farmers also keep their animals biologically fit so that they are healthy enough to grow and reproduce. In recent years, pet foods have become increasingly sophisticated and targeted. One brand trumpets its sophistication with the name “Science Diet.” The process behind livestock feed is arguably more scientific. Visit a dairy farm to see how the cows’ feed is formulated. As a supplement to hay and silage, the farmer may add soybean meal, yeast, hominy corn, rendered blood, minerals,

67

and other things that cannot be consumed by humans and would otherwise end up in a landfill. The precise amount of each ingredient is calculated by expert nutritionists who use computers to account for the animal’s every nutrient need, in ways far more deliberate and scientific than what we feed our pets—or even what we eat ourselves. One of the authors used to work on a dairy that attached collars to the cows so that, when the animal approached the feeding stall, it activated a computerized feeder which delivered its precise dietary needs. Every time the cow ate the event was recorded, so that the farmer could be quickly alerted when a cow had not eaten (and was therefore probably sick and needed immediate attention).

One of the greatest dangers to a sow (pregnant pig) is other sows. When many sows are given access to the same food, water, and space they will fight over those resources, causing both physical and mental harm. The dominant sows will eat too much, the subordinate sows too little. Like cows, hogs can be given collars or ear tags, and an automated feeding stall that allows only one animal to enter at a time. This allows the sow to eat in peace, while making sure she is protected from other aggressors and doesn’t eat too much or too little.

Welfare-conscious improvements in poultry feeding strategies have also been developed. Chickens used to be denied food from 5 to 14 days at a time to induce synchronized molting (the natural feather shedding process used to rejuvenate hen egg production) in an entire flock. Since the 1980s, many concerns arose regarding the welfare of hens being starved in order to artificially promote molting, which resulted in a variety of alternative methods. Today, special feeds and diets allow the hen to molt without experiencing hunger.

Think back to dogs and their owners. Dogs owners protect their pets from excessive heat and cold by housing them indoors or in doghouses. To prevent infestations of worms, fleas, and tics, the dogs’ living area is kept clean, and they are given medication to ward off parasites. Likewise, most hogs and chickens are now raised indoors, not only to keep them at a comfortable temperature and protect them from predators, but to reduce disease. Cows are regularly given medicine that wards off flies, fleas, lice, and ticks, and bedding for dairy cows and chickens are routinely cleaned.

If you have not spent much time on a farm, throw away every notion you have about it being old- fashioned. The modern farm is a highly specialized, technical, and scientific business. Some cows today even have stomach capsules that record the animals’ temperature, alerting the farmer if it is running a fever. On her smartphone the farmer can install the Thermal Aid app, which collects a variety of weather data and alerts the farmer when heat stress in cattle is likely. Because animals generally perform well when their biological needs are met, the livestock industry has become experts at meeting the function-based needs of the animal.

Yet meeting the function-based needs of the animal is not sufficient for everyone. Most dog owners subscribe to the feeling-based school of animal welfare. They will swear they can tell if their dog is sad or scared, which makes the owner respond with love and comfort. Though they might not feel like it at the time, an owner may take her best friend for a walk if the dog whines at the front door, or stop to play if the dog seems bored.

One might be tempted to say that the livestock industry manages too many animals to account for their feelings, and that feelings cannot be scientifically measured, anyway. While it is true that farmers cannot get to know every pig and cow, they do care about animal feelings, and scientific tools for indirectly measuring how animals perceive their environment do exist. For example, mental

68

states of stress in animals are correlated with elevated levels of certain hormones. A stressed sheep, for instance, will display higher cortisol concentrations when it is separated from the flock. Building shelter for animals is expensive, so a farmer will want to keep as many hogs under one roof as possible, but not so many that the stress of the crowd is detrimental. In experiments, animal scientists have placed groups of hogs at different stocking densities (different square meters per pig) and measured cortisol levels of each group, thereby allowing one to determine a density that keeps both animal stress and farmers’ costs low.319

Another way of inferring an animal’s mental state is to simply let the animal reveal its preferences by presenting it with choices. These choice experiments even teach animals to pay a “price” to receive something; instead of paying with money, the animals pay by performing a physical action. The more times that action must be performed, the higher the price it pays. So not only do we measure whether livestock prefers one thing or another, but also the maximum price they will pay for each (i.e., a measure of their motivation to obtain a resource). For example, it is known that hens truly desire nests for laying eggs because they are willing to squeeze through a very small hole to reach one. Even if you raise the price by making the hole smaller, they squeeze through whenever it is physically possible. Hogs want both to eat and to socialize with other animals; we know this because they will press a lever multiple times for both. They value food more than socialization though, because they will press a lever more times for the food.320

Scientists study these animal preferences using experiments and mathematical models, the same models economists use to capture human preferences. Some economists have gone so far as to measure “total happiness” and “total suffering” by humans and animals in one utilitarian function, thereby achieving what Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer have long advocated: taking animal feelings into account just as one accounts for human feelings. So, like dog owners, the livestock industry takes animal feelings seriously—just in a more technical way.

Finally there is the nature-based school of animal welfare, which simply says that animals are content and comfortable when they are allowed to express their natural instincts and live in natural environments, and discontent, stressed, and uncomfortable when they cannot. Every dog owner knows the most important part of a walk is when the dog smells the urine and feces of other dogs. It doesn’t accomplish anything practical for the dog, but is still an essential part of a happy dog’s life. They also like to play tug-of-war, chase squirrels, and protect their master from the UPS man, all because these were once essential behaviors of their wild ancestors.

Like dogs, livestock still desire to engage in certain natural behaviors even if it has no tangible benefit. Chickens like to scratch in the sand even if their feed trough is full, and they like to bathe in dust even if there are no parasites. Hogs absolutely love to dig, explore, and wallow in the mud. Cows prefer shade during hot summers and to live in herds.

Farmers acknowledge the importance of these natural behaviors, and when it is economically feasible, are happy to provide all of them. For example, instead of a barren cage, laying hens can be housed in “enriched” colony cages, which contain perches, sand for scratching and/or dust bathing, and private nest boxes when the consumers are willing to pay a premium to cover the additional cost of production. Some farmers allow their hogs outdoor access, or if indoors, sawdust for them to excavate. Farmers rarely house adult cows individually, allowing them to live in herds, and when available, access to shade and pasture.

69

What is the animal welfare controversy?

Even the most loving dog owners cannot provide their pet constant bliss. Sometimes there are tradeoffs between two things that make a dog happy. Immediately before an owner leaves for work, the dog begs to play in the fenced-in backyard, but outside it would have to stay in the cold all day. Thus, denying the dog the ability to play for a few minutes outside prevents it from being cold all day. Or, if the dog is getting fat and its owner imposes a dreaded diet. Though it wants to eat so much more the owner knows that denying it unlimited food is in its long-term best interest.

For similar reasons, farmers must sometimes sacrifice one aspect of animal welfare to provide another. Hogs are usually raised on concrete where they are denied the ability to explore, rest comfortably (though hogs often prefer concrete in the summer), and dig. Yet, being on concrete makes for more sterile housing, thereby improving the health of the animal (and the safety of the meat). Laying hens are sometimes placed in a small, barren cage with a few other birds. This makes for an unenriched environment, but if allowed to roam free in the barn with thousands of other hens they will injure one another causing pain and resulting in higher death losses. The hens would also like to go outside and hunt for insects, but free-range farms can have very high mortality rates (up to 25%, compared to 3% in cage systems).321 It is true that cattle in feedlots are not allowed to graze in pastures, but it is also true that they are given an alternative feed that they crave even more than grass and are given individualized attention more frequently by animal managers.

There are times when you must choose between your happiness and the dog’s—sometimes you choose your own. It wants to go on a walk, but you are tired and your favorite show just came on. It misses going into the backyard whenever it wants, but you can’t afford to repair the fence right now. There are even cases when a pet is euthanized because the surgery to keep it alive without pain is too expensive.

Similarly, most consumers will simply not pay the premium necessary to provide all animal needs. If farmers must sell food products at the lowest prices, then farms must operate efficiently, and this requires them to sacrifice some elements of animal welfare to keep food affordable. For example, there are some hog farms that provide most of what hogs need to live a pleasant life, including a sanitary environment, protection from aggressive hogs, space to explore, mulch to dig in, and more. Few hog farms like this exist, though, because it costs up to 30% more to raise hogs,322 and few consumers are willing to pay this premium. There is a movement in the U.S. led by both the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States to convert all egg farms currently using small, barren cages to enriched cages. They wish to do this by lobbying for federal legislation requiring enriched cages and standardized cage sizes across the U.S. There is little doubt that hens are able to behave more naturally in enriched cages, but it would raise egg production costs by around 12%,323 and if consumers would voluntarily pay this premium no legislation would be necessary, as farmers would voluntarily adopt them. However much consumers, farmers, and pet owners want animals to experience superior states of welfare, there is a limit to what they will pay to achieve it.

Husbandry Practices and Medical Procedures

There is little controversy about what type of environment animals need to achieve optimal welfare. Controversy exists because few people are willing to pay the price necessary to provide all these needs, so the argument revolves around which needs should be sacrificed. To provide some

70

examples, consider Table 8.1, listing various medical procedures that, on the one hand involve pain and stress, but on the other hand provide benefits to both the animals and consumers.

Readers are probably familiar with the black and white dairy cows on Chick-fil-A commercials. Next time you see the commercials notice that the cows do not have horns. This is not because that breed is hornless, but because the horns were surgically removed by the farmer. While dehorning is certainly painful and is often performed without anesthetics, it prevents the cows from injuring each other and farm workers. Male pigs are castrated because boar meat is inferior, and because it reduces aggression between pigs. The beak of a chicken is a weapon, and adult hens can be surprisingly cruel, so their beaks are trimmed at a young age. These are all examples of trading one aspect of animal welfare for another, and not everyone agrees on whether the tradeoff is ethical.

Table 8.1—Examples of Routine On-Farm Management Procedures Conducted on Livestock

Species Management

practice What the practice

involves When this practice is

typically done1 Why this practice is done

Cattle

Early removal/wean from mother cow in dairy animals

Separation of new born calf from its mother

Immediately to 48 hours after birth

Allow for milk production from cow to enter the food supply; calves are provided with a milk replacer.

Castration of males Removal of testicles from male cattle not used for breeding purposes

Dairy calves: ~3-4 weeks of age

Beef calves: ~10-13 months of age

Male cattle are safer and easier to handle, and prevents unwanted breeding.

Tail docking of female dairy cows

Removal of the tip of the tail or shortening of the tail

A few weeks after being weaned off milk or a few weeks before giving birth

Make access to the cow’s udder easier during milking and claimed to keep the cow cleaner.

Disbudding / Dehorning

Prevention of horn growth or horn removal/amputation

Dairy: 1 – 6 weeks of age

Beef: 2 – 12 months of age

Protect cattle and farm workers from injury.

Animal Identification Pierce the ears with ear tags and/or marking the skin by hot iron or freeze branding

Upon birth or arrival to a farm

Provide means of identifying individual animals and keeping accurate records of them.

Pigs

Tail docking Removal of 1/3 to 1/2 of the tail

3 – 8 days of age Prevent tail biting by other pigs.

Teeth clipping Clip or grind of the canine teeth of piglets

3 – 8 days of age Reduce injury to littermates or to the udder during nursing by piglets.

71

Castration of males Removal of testicles from piglets not used for breeding purposes

3 – 8 days of age Prevent boar taint (in meat) and aggressive behavior problems.

Animal Identification Taking one or several notches out of the tip of both ears

3 – 8 days of age Provides a permanent, inexpensive identification system to individually identify animals.

Poultry (chickens

and turkeys)

Beak trimming Beaks are trimmed and no more than 1/2 and 1/3 of the upper and lower beak is removed, respectively

1 – 10 days after hatching or 18 – 16 weeks of age

Prevent cannibalism and pecking between birds that may lead to skin injuries or feather loss.

Claw removal of males Removal of the last joint of the inside toes of male breeding birds

1 – 3 days of age Prevent injuries to hens during mating.

Some controversies regard whether a procedure should be performed. For example, some dairy farms used to routinely dock the tails of their cows. Recent research suggests the benefits are small or nonexistent, and so most farmers now leave cows’ tails intact, and docking is even banned in numerous states in the US (California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and soon Ohio (2018)) and Europe (Denmark, Germany, Scotland, Sweden, the UK, and some Australian states). The European Union is attempting to eliminate all castration of male pigs by 2018. Other times the debate is not whether, but how a procedure is performed, like whether castration is accompanied by anesthesia, a practice that is mandatory—though not always followed—in the European Union (if the piglet is older than six days).324

Housing

Although controversies about the severity of management procedures will continue to exist, the most consequential debates concern livestock housing, and this is probably because consumers and citizens generally dislike housing animals in small, barren cages. In the United States, for example, most egg production takes place in battery cages where a few hens are placed in a barren wire cage. The wire allows manure to drop through the floor onto a conveyor belt, keeping the cage sanitary, and with few hens in each cage, aggression is not much of a problem. These cages are now banned in the European Union325 and three U.S. states. Will these bans improve hen welfare? It depends on what replaces the cages. If the barren cages are replaced with larger enriched colony cages, many agree that the hens’ behaviors and ability to express behaviors are improved, but there is less consensus on hen health if the cages are replaced with cage-free facilities (i.e. aviaries or free-range systems). Some believe that, although mortality rates are higher in a cage-free system, this is a cost worth paying if the hens are given ample room to move around, explore, and express their normal behaviors. Others believe animal welfare is lower in a cage-free facility, due to increased predation, cannibalism, hen piling and smothering, feather pecking, exposure to and spread of parasites and diseases, and mortality, and that these factors should not be ignored when evaluating welfare and a housing system.

72

Regarding what hens ‘feel’ about their environments, this disagreement is almost impossible to reconcile because it is impossible to measure whether hens are truly “happier” or emotionally distressed in any one system. However, using behavior experiments comparing normal ancestral behavior patterns to domesticated hens and preference tests (for resources like perches, private nest boxes, increased space, etc.) can help provide insight into the extent that hens desire or dislike environmental features (i.e. their motivation to live in a particular environment or obtain a specific resource). These behavioral scientific tools can indirectly provide us the information needed to better understand the feelings hens may have about their environmental conditions. With many different ways of looking at welfare, it is clear that assessing hen welfare can be quite difficult and multifactorial.

Another pet analogy that one of the authors uses to illustrate how people have different priorities regarding welfare was described by the welfare and behavior research specialist Dr. Joy Mench of the University of California, Davis. This analogy describes an indoor cat sitting at a window, longing to go outside and explore, hunt, and protect its territory. Some cat owners (like the author herself) recognize that their cat’s desire to act on its natural instincts is important to its mental well-being. But is allowing the cat to have outdoor access worth endangering the cat by vehicles, predators, other cats, parasites, diseases, and weather extremes? This depends on what the owner values more: the ability for the cat to fulfill its desire to express certain behaviors outdoors or maintaining the safety of the cat from outdoor hazards. Keeping the cat indoors minimizes the risk of injury, illness, or death by outdoor factors, but some owners are willing to let their cat face those risks in order to perform behaviors driven by its natural instincts. Both types of owners have their cat’s ‘best interest’ in mind; they just prioritize those interests differently.

Hogs are perhaps one of the most difficult livestock species to manage. The fences used for horses and cattle cannot contain them, and they can turn a flat, verdant field into a World War I no-man’s- land in a short period of time. Sows are particularly stubborn and sometimes require extra time and effort to move them from point A to point B. Providing medicine, assisting in birthing, and artificial insemination (the norm) is much easier when sows are placed into steel stalls with a slatted floor and sides so narrow the sow cannot turn around. These are called gestation stalls when sows are pregnant and not yet nursing piglets. Farrowing stalls also are narrow and prevent the sow from turning around, but provide piglets protection and room for movement to nurse. The stalls allow the farmer to feed and treat the sow individually, and it protects her from other sows. While they provide certain benefits to the sow and farmer, the inability to turn around or walk obviously frustrates the sow. If farmers do not use gestation stalls, most will use a group-pen, which is simply a barren pen with a few too many sows. Each animal has the ability to move around, but are now at the mercy of sharing resources with dominant sows. Are they better off in the group-pen? That depends on whether the injuries and competition for food outweigh the benefits of greater mobility.

So once again, it will depend on what replaces the gestation stall and how that alternative better protects a sow from injury, behavioral problems, health impairments, mortality, and other environmental conditions that negatively impact animals. Sometimes it is a lateral move to change from one system to another in terms of welfare indicators, because current alternatives still present pros and cons to sow welfare; but now there’s the added expense of installing an entirely new system and training workers to learn how to manage the new system. Some believe such a change may be worth the tradeoffs, whereas others do not.

73

Consider a specific case one of the authors researched as part of her graduate studies, involving male dairy cattle raised for beef. Since the calf is taken from its mother at birth, the farmer must perform all the duties of the mother. Calves are especially vulnerable to sickness at this age, so a sanitary environment is imperative. One housing option is a hutch with slatted floors, where the manure falls below the animal and separates the animal from its excrements, reducing parasites and disease, but providing only hard surfaces for the calf to rest. An alternative is a hutch with bedding, like straw or sawdust, but no separation of the calf and its excrements. The calf may have a preference for the hutch with bedding (depending on the weather). However, it is unaware that the pen with bedding will put it into greater contact with its own feces and bacteria, increasing the chance of sickness, so we can’t simply ask the calf which pen is better.

The author’s research allowed her to measure the extent to which bedding might increase sickness. For instance, it quantified the differences in airborne bacteria concentrations, finding that bedding resulted in more than twice the concentrations of airborne bacteria than slatted floors. However, the research could not say that one system was better than the other for the animal overall, because both options had both pros and cons for the well-being of the calf.326 The research can only point out where areas of concern may exist, so that current and future systems can prevent conditions that can impede the welfare of animals.

Periodically, such research provides unambiguous progress, and this did happen in the aforementioned study. In addition to comparing bedding versus slatted floors, the author evaluated a third system, which was bedding with an additive that reduced the bedding’s pH to improve the sanitation of the bedding. Results from this study and previous studies found that this additive did indeed reduce bacterial concentrations and even fly survival327, providing more insight on strategies that can improve the bedding conditions of calf housing.

Table 8.2—Controversial Housing Systems

Name of housing system

Species housed

When used in the animal’s

life

Why the housing system is used

Pros Cons

Conventional or Battery Cage

Egg-laying hens

All their life (~18- 24 months)

Sanitary Protection from predators Reduced death and injurious

pecking from other hens. Easier to observe birds and

provide medical treatment.

Economically efficient.

Little room to move Restricts natural

behaviors like dust- bathing, walking, foraging, nesting, wing flapping, stretching, body shakes, tail wagging, and roosting

Reduced bone strength Excessive claw growth

Gestation Crate

Pregnant sow During pregnancy (~115 days)

Protects sows from aggression and injury by other sows.

Sows do not compete for food.

Protection from heat and cold.

Sow can neither walk nor turn around.

Restricted space allowance.

Restricted social interaction.

Absence of bedding and

74

Flooring is dry and sanitary. Easier to provide

individualized attention and medical treatment.

Economically efficient.

opportunity to forage. Boredom can cause

stereotypic behavior (abnormal repetitive behavior).

Farrowing Crate

Sows During birth and nursing (~20-30 days)

Protects piglets from being crushed by mother.

Gives piglets constant access to sow.

Provides piglets choice between cooler and warmer areas.

Flooring is dry and sanitary. Easier to provide

individualized attention and medical treatment.

Easier to assist sows in birthing.

Sows do not compete for food.

Economically efficient.

Sow can neither walk nor turn around.

Restricted space allowance.

Restricted social interaction.

Absence of bedding and opportunity to forage.

Boredom can cause stereotypic behavior (abnormal repetitive behavior).

Handling

One cannot discuss animal welfare without addressing how livestock are handled, restrained, managed, and transported. One of the most famous animal scientists is Dr. Temple Grandin, and anyone who watched the HBO film about her life (titled Temple Grandin) knows that she designed facilities and handling methods that reduce stress in cattle while also making handling easier for workers. More than any other she understands the mind of an animal, and her keen insights have revolutionized how livestock are treated on farms and in slaughtering facilities.328 For instance, animal science students today learn about the “flight zones” of different livestock species, which allows one to direct animals to their intended destination with less stress and injury for both humans and animals. Compared to thirty years ago, livestock handlers today use electric prods less often, are gentler, quieter, and more aware of how the animal is thinking. She didn’t just change the equipment that industry uses, but the cultural norms about how animals perceive their environments and are handled by humans.

With other animal scientists and the livestock industry, Grandin has developed objective auditing procedures that companies can use to identify problem areas, like slippery floors. This makes it easier for a company’s overall welfare standards to be audited, and auditing is important if the company wishes to assure customers that their methods are humane.

There are occasions when standard handling techniques appear questionable or cruel on video but in reality are more nuanced. For instance, scenes from the documentary Samsara (http://vimeo.com/73234721) shows a machine (referred to as a mechanical chicken catching system) traveling on the edge of a dense crowd of birds within a barn, catching birds with soft,

75

rotating fingers and moving them onto a conveyor belt, where humans then place them in a bin to be transported.

The catching machine is actually considered to be quite humane, both for the birds and workers. Without the machine, intensive and strenuous human labor is needed, where workers enter large flocks and pick the birds up by hand, holding them upside down with three or four other birds and then placing them in a cage for transport. The birds experience stress when being caught, regardless of which method is used, but there is evidence that stress and injury rates are lower with the machine.329 Perhaps future research will find newer technologies to advance and improve handling methods, but the important thing is to keep asking how animal welfare might be improved and conduct scientific research to parse the good ideas from the bad.

Even a casual perusing of YouTube using the search terms “undercover + investigation + farm” will return a number of videos showing pigs, cattle, and chickens handled cruelly. Some are too difficult for most people to watch, but often, many of the videos are interspersed with both cruel treatment and acceptable day-to-day management practices. When such videos are viewed by the lay person, all practices presented on the video are lumped into a single ‘inhumane’ category which further confuses those far removed from agriculture and obscures the discussion of livestock welfare. While depictions of cruel treatment are not representative of most farms and are misleading to its viewers, they sometimes show what is possible when humans do not abide by accepted norms of animal treatment. Every new depiction of cruelty posted online is not only publicly condemned by animal advocates and consumers, but livestock industry groups as well. This does not mean that the livestock industry and animal advocacy organizations are on the same page. They still disagree on how and whether livestock should be raised for food, but the difference is that, today, most everyone expresses a commitment to animal welfare.

Hopefully, these examples demonstrate that the controversy involves far more than being “kind” to farm animals. They also concern how one should go about being kind. Two individuals may have equal empathy for animals but disagree on how the animal should be raised (i.e. their priorities differ across the three general schools of welfare (1) function- (2) feeling- and (3) nature-based schools). While agricultural scientists are not in a position to tell society how much compassion livestock should be given, they can play—and eagerly wish to play—a productive role in helping society understand how to achieve the best welfare of all animals in human care.

Scientists do not make many decisions about how animals are treated though. These decisions are made by the interactions between agricultural industries, their customers, the public, special interest groups, and policy. It is to these interactions we now turn.

How is farm animal welfare regulated?

Being U.S. researchers we will approach this question largely in terms of U.S. regulation, but the reader should be made aware that the European Union has taken farm animal welfare more seriously than any another other region. It continually prescribes new minimum welfare standards that all EU countries are expected to meet, and these standards usually place more emphasis on the feeling- based and nature-based school of animal welfare, compared to the U.S.

Regulation of livestock production in the U.S. tends to take place at a state-level. The federal Animal Welfare Act specifically excludes farm animals, but there are federal laws to prohibit inhumane

76

slaughter, regulate how livestock are transported, and one federal law requires the Secretary of Agriculture to study a variety of livestock issues, including animal welfare. There are no federal laws about how livestock should be treated while they are on the farm.330

Some readers may have first come across some of the hog welfare controversies when they watched HBO’s documentary Death on a Factory Farm, where an undercover animal rights activist covertly filmed a hog farm where he worked. Some of the scenes depicted a typical hog farm, with sows in gestation crates and pigs on concrete slabs, and these are conditions that some animal scientists and veterinarians find acceptable. Most of the film concerned acts which the vast majority of farmers do not condone, like providing inadequate feed, allowing cannibalism, and “euthanizing” sows by hanging (hanging was still legal in Ohio though). The farm operators were charged on eight counts of violating Ohio’s anti-cruelty laws. Such counts are difficult to prosecute, because the laws often exclude livestock from certain requirements. For instance, Ohio laws state that no person should, “keep animals other than cattle, poultry, or fowl, swine, sheep, or goats in an enclosure without wholesome exercise and change of air…” If the farmers had kept a dog under the conditions described above they would have been found guilty, but because it was a pig instead, they were not.331

Until recently U.S. farmers were allowed to house their livestock however they pleased, but in the last decade a number of changes in state law have forced egg producers in three states to seek alternative to the battery cage and hog farmers in eight states to care for sows without gestation stalls. Citizens in the states of California, Arizona, and Florida voted on initiatives to ban one or both of these housing systems. The California initiative, referred to as Prop-2, receive considerable attention, so much that Oprah Winfrey devoted an entire episode of her show to it, even a bringing gestation stall and battery cage to her studio for the audience to see for themselves. The states of Oregon, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio banned at least one of these systems through legislation.

Consider the wording of California’s Prop 2, which reads as follows.

…a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animals from (a) lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and (b) turning around freely. —Proposition 2. 2008. State of California. Accessed November 25, 2013 at http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-08-09_07-0041_Initiative.pdf.

At the time it was passed, many farmers were not sure how to comply with the proposition since specifics on acceptable housing methods were not established by the proposition nor the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Notice the proposition does not ban cages. Are cage-free production methods the only acceptable methods? What about caged systems (such as enriched colony cages) where birds are able to lie down, stand up, extend their limbs, and turn around? This was not what the HSUS had in mind,332 though, and the disagreement led to a lawsuit by the Association of California Egg Farmers (and others) requesting clarification about exactly what Prop 2 means in regards to acceptable housing systems.333 Also, there was also the possibility that California might continue to import eggs from caged systems in other states (as it had regularly imported eggs prior to the passing of Prop-2), but that was prohibited by later legislation.334

HSUS and animal scientists in the U.S. never agreed about cage-free egg systems. Although HSUS believed it to be the most humane method of egg production, animal scientists could only agree that

77

cage-free systems allowed greater movement and natural behaviors at the expense of greater mortality and injury rates. It is nearly impossible to find any animal scientist in the U.S. who expresses with confidence that cage-free systems are unambiguously better for hens than the cage system, or for that matter, that cage systems are better than cage-free. This is because there are tradeoffs (pros and cons) in every housing system.

Then came the unexpected. Just as the debate between cage and cage-free egg production looked as if it were about to become bitter and prolonged, the United Egg Producers (largest egg producer group in the US) and HSUS reached an agreement on how hens should be raised. In 2011 they both agreed to jointly pursue federal legislation requiring enriched colony cages (amongst other farming standards), where hens are given sufficient space to comply with Prop 2, plus be allowed perches, scratching areas, and private nest boxes. Moreover, the animal scientists who advise the United Egg Producers supported the plan, and enriched cages are generally regarded by most animal scientists to provide for better hen behaviors than cage systems.335

Why did these two opponents reconcile? The HSUS probably believed it would benefit laying hens, although HSUS has historically campaigned for cage-free egg production. It likely knew it would also set a precedent by which it could lobby for more regulations at the federal level. The egg producers were perhaps motivated by the fact that state-specific laws on caged eggs are so variable and this legislative agreement could halt costly battles across state lines. Likewise, if producers in certain states were to incur higher production costs, surely would want producers in other states to do the same—thus the push for nationwide uniformity. Some have even suggested that higher animal welfare standards allow the egg industry to collectively reduce egg production and boost prices, but there is no public evidence to support it.

A mutually agreeable solution was reached, and the problem was solved, it seemed. Senator Diane Feinstein (D, California) introduced the legislation in May of 2012, but then other livestock groups became concerned that this would set a bad precedent, and might lead to federal legislation of other livestock farmers. Just when egg producers and animal advocacy organizations seem to have settled on an agreement, other livestock producers have now entered the debate, because the manner in which the egg controversy is settled impacts how, say, the pork controversy is settled. As the time of this writing, the egg controversy is still unresolved.336

This HSUS-backed legislation would set a dangerous precedent that could let Washington bureaucrats dictate how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for their animals…We don’t need or want the federal government and HSUS telling us how to do our jobs —Wolf, Doug. President of the National Pork Producer Council. January 24, 2013. “Livestock groups equate HSUS / UEP bill to government takeover of farms.” Agri-Pulse.com. Accessed November 25, 2013 at http://www.agri- pulse.com/HSUS_UEP_legislation_012312.asp.

Reasons why producers of other industries may oppose federal legislation on egg production is because they believe that mandating a ‘one-size-fits-all’ federal bill would (1) take away producers’ freedom to operate in manners they see fit for the best of their animals, (2) make it challenging to respond to consumer demands and choices, (3) increase food prices, (4) negatively impact niche markets and small-scale farmers, and (5) redirect agriculture budgeted funds from enhancing food safety and US competitiveness to regulating on-farm practices for reasons other than public and animal health. Thus, industries other than egg production fear this agreement would set a ‘dangerous precedent’ for the future of their own industries; and not only for the reasons mentioned, but also for the fear that animal rights groups, like HSUS and PETA, could dictate on-farm practices when

78

the mission of such groups is to abolish the use of animals by humans, which greatly differs from the views of those in food production.337

To see why pork producers might oppose federal legislation on egg production, consider two important facts. First, although gestation stalls have been banned in eight states (or, more accurately, will be banned at a precise future date), those states raise relatively few hogs. Second, most pork production takes place in states that are protected from state-level initiatives to ban gestation stalls. The states with the highest hog populations are also ones in which state-level initiatives are either not allowed, or the requirements are so stringent that an initiative to ban gestation stalls seems almost impossible. Gestation stalls in the U.S. are thus safe from state-level legislation,338 so they don’t want the possibility of federal regulations either.

The pork industry is under some pressure from retailers though. Companies like Kroger, Subway, McDonalds, Dennys, Target, Sysco, Oscar Mayer, and Conagra have announced intentions to source pork produced without gestation stalls. Gestation stalls do lower production costs, but converting to group pens only raises the cost of producing retail pork by about 2%.339 For these reasons, some in the pork industry are making moves towards a voluntary switch from gestation stalls to group pens, a move Smithfield Foods (the largest pork producer in the world) announced it was making years ago.340 This doesn’t mean gestation stalls will soon be a historical relic, for animal scientists are far from agreed that group pens are better. Some, like Dr. Janeen Salak-Johnson of the University of Illinois, has been especially vocal in lamenting that decisions about how sows are raised are beginning to be made not by farmers, animal scientists, and veterinarians, but retailers and restaurants.341 What does seem certain is that some portion of the pork industry is converting to group-pens due to pressure from its buyers. Whether this transition evolves to an industry-wide phenomenon remains unclear.

Growth hormones in livestock agriculture

Beef Cattle

One of the authors once took a college class giving him hands-on experience caring for newborn calves. Every morning for two weeks he would drive around a pasture looking for calves born the previous night. Once a newborn was spotted, he would castrate the animal if it were a male, attach an identification tag in its ear, and inject into the calf’s ear a small pellet containing synthetic growth hormones (often, estrogen). With this hormone the calf would be healthier and grow faster. Its impact on cattle growth is so large that the rancher receives between $5 and $10 for every $1 they spend on the hormone.342

Many years later the author was talking to a cattle producer, who remarked that the use of growth hormones was causing young women to mature faster. The author laughed, as the statement seemed so outrageous that he assumed the farmer was joking—but he was not.

If you research the issue (but not a lot) you can see where the farmer is coming from. You are putting growth hormones into cattle, so it is only logical that the hormones might be present in the beef, possibly causing changes in the person eating the beef. The rumor that this causes early puberty has some basis in fact. One of the worst scandals to hit the dairy industry was in 1974, when cattle feed was accidentally laced with a flame retardant called PBB and fed to thousands of cows in Michigan. Before the accident could be discovered, most Michigan citizens had drunk milk from

79

those cows. The key detail is that this PBB mimics estrogen, and there is some evidence that pregnant mothers who drank more of this milk gave birth to girls that matured earlier.343

Add to this true story the fact that synthetic growth hormones have been used on a large scale since the 1960s,344 and that young people started to mature younger in the 1970s,345 and that explains the fear that growth hormones in cattle production are causing children to mature earlier.

Dig deeper, though, and it is clear that hormone use in beef production bears no resemblance to the PBB scandal. First, children may not even be maturing earlier. Studies that suggest they do tend to rely on subjective judgments about the size of breasts and testicles, but when you use an objective measure like the age at which a girl first menstruates, a trend towards earlier maturity isn’t found.346

Even if kids are maturing earlier it cannot be because of synthetic growth hormones in beef cattle. It is true that cattle given estrogen will have more of the hormone in their meat: an additional 0.4 nanograms of estrogen for every 4 ounces of beef, relative to cattle not receiving estrogen. Compare that to four ounces of raw cabbage, which contains 2,700 nanograms, a soy latte (with one ounce of soy milk) which contains 30,000 nanograms, or three ounces of soybean oil which contains 168,000,000! One birth control pill contains 25,000 nanograms, and the average pre-pubertal girl will have 54,000 nanograms of estrogen in her body every day.347

All growth hormones given to cattle in the U.S. are regulated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as being safe for both humans and animals.348 Scientists and regulators are not perfect. They failed to see how the feeding of rendered carcasses to cattle might lead to Mad Cow disease. As this book is going to press a growth promoter used in the beef industry (Zilmax) is being accused of harming cattle health. At the present it is unclear whether Zilmax is the problem, but its maker is defending itself by remarking upon all the safety studies that were performed and reviewed by regulators.349 So no, regulators are not perfect, but we know of no better way to determine what is safe and what isn’t than the science regulators employ. We certainly trust the science more than rumor.

The European Union has a different opinion of growth hormones, and any beef the U.S. exports to the E.U. must be hormone-free (‘hormone-free’ means the cow was not given synthetic beef hormones, as all food contains hormones). It is unclear why the E.U. has taken this stance, given that the scientific literature and the World Trade Organization deem hormones to be safe.350 Some suggest it is just an excuse the E.U. uses to protect its beef producers against imports. Others content this trade barrier was the product of a series of trade disputes between the U.S. and the EU, and that the Europeans placed the ban in retaliation for Bill Clinton, who at the request of Chiquita placed a tax on luxury goods coming from the EU, a tax the U.S. placed in response to a banana import quota by the EU.351 Or, it could be that European consumers are simply more skeptical of synthetic growth hormones than the U.S. The ban is probably the result of all three.

If indeed children are maturing earlier there are much better explanations for what may be contributing to it. Children who weigh more tend to mature earlier, for instance, and childhood obesity started rising around the same time growth hormones were adopted by the cattle industry. This is well known in the African country of Mauritania, where young girls are sent to a “fat farm” to gain weight (as being skinny is associated with poverty) so that they can better attract suitors, and so that they mature earlier.

80

If possible, at 8 or 9 years old she will begin to be force-fed until she prematurely matures into an adult woman. —Ely, Aminetou Mint [interviewee], from the Association of Woman Heads of Households in Mauritania. “Winners & Losers.” Vice [television show]. Bill Maher, Shane Smith, Eddy Moretti, and B. J. Levin [executive producers]. Shane Smith and Suroosh Alvi [hosts]. HBO. In the closed-captioning the word “prematurely” was placed in “[.]” brackets.

There is one legitimate reason to buy hormone-free beef though. It has nothing to do with safety but everything to do with the eating experience. Cattle given synthetic growth hormones tend to produce tougher beef, so if you are willing to pay a higher price for tender beef, hormone-free beef may be the way to go.352 There is no such thing as a free lunch though, as hormone-free beef will cost more and has a larger carbon footprint due to the longer time required to reach a slaughter weight.353

Growth hormones in livestock agriculture: pork, eggs, and poultry

No growth hormones are given to hogs or chickens,354 mostly because they simply are not as effective as they are in cattle.355 So if you see pork, eggs, or chicken labeled as hormone-free, the seller is telling you the truth, but is trying to deceive you into thinking that their competitors do use hormones.

rBST hormone in milk production

The hormone controversy is most intense in milk production. This is evident by the label on every bottle of milk in the U.S. When a dairy cow gives birth, its pituitary gland begins producing the hormone somatotropin. This hormone diverts reserves of energy into producing milk. Dairy farmers can boost the cow’s milk production by injecting it with additional somatropin. Manufacturing the hormone is difficult though, and was not feasible until the Monsanto corporation genetically modified a bacterium to produce rBST: recombinant bovine somatotropin. Now farmers can inject cows with rBST and produce more milk from each cow. This means more milk for each lb of corn fed, each gallon of water drunk, and each hour of human labor. Because resources are used more efficiently with rBST it lowers the carbon footprint of milk.356

Consuming milk from cattle that were administered rBST means humans are consuming a genetically modified growth hormone. Is that safe? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it is, explaining that rBST is biologically indistinguishable from its non-GM counterpart (BST), that both are inactive in the human body, and any other differences between the two milks have no impact on human health.357

Some have questioned the FDA’s assessment, noting that since rBST boosts milk production by denying the cow of some of its reserve energy the cattle might experience poorer health. Compare the body of a beef cow to a dairy cow and one will see the toll that high milk production can take (allowing some exaggeration, high yielding dairy cows look like a hide draped over a bare skeleton with a huge udder underneath). Increasing milk production might compromise the cows’ immune system, requiring the use of antibiotics. The resulting milk might then contain antibiotic residues and be less safe, the claim goes (though the FDA regulates antibiotic use to prevent this). If cows are negatively affected by the hormones, some wondered whether the consumers of the cows’ milk would be harmed also. Although Monsanto claimed that rBSt had no impact on cattle health, when some of Monsanto’s confidential data were made public by an anonymous FDA employee, the data suggested those claims were false. Cattle health was worsened by rBST.358 The arguments made against rBST then involve a conspiracy.

81

The conspiracy theory got even bigger. There was an official investigation. The FDA defended its position by publishing an article in the prestigious journal Science,359 but the conspiracy theorists (a term not meant disparagingly) observed that the main reviewer of the article had received compensation from Monsanto in the past. When an FDA employee was fired, some said it was because he expressed his belief that rBST needed more research before it should be deemed safe. The FDA was accused of manipulating data, or relying too much on Monsanto’s honesty, and as a result failed to determine the extent to which rBST milk is safe (in regards to a substance called IGF-1).360

So, here is another case where a controversial issue requires one to decide whether to trust the regulatory agencies and the bulk of scientists, or whether to believe that the influence of a corporation is so pervasive that the truth is only being spoken by a few courageous journalists and scientists. As we have stated before, we tend to trust our fellow scientists and regulatory agencies, and so we are skeptical of the conspiracy theory. Some readers of the book The World According to Monsanto and viewers of the documentary Ethos might feel otherwise, and seek to avoid rBST milk. It certainly seems that the general public is more skeptical of rBST milk than our colleagues in agricultural colleges.

Have you noticed that milk often comes with the label, “This milk is from cows not treated with rBST,” which is then followed by the statement, “The Food and Drug Administration has determined there is no significant difference between milk from rBST treated cows and non-rBST treated cows,” a disclaimer recommended by the FDA to prevent the seller from being accused of false advertising? These seemingly conflicting statements reflect the desire of some farms to meet consumer demand for rBST-free milk and the FDA’s belief that there is no legitimate reason for consumers to demand such a product. The FDA does not represent all of government though. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (ruling on whether Ohio should ban the labeling of rBST-free milk) concluded that rBST and non-rBST milk are materially different.361 The presence of the label saying the cows were not given rBST does stigmatize conventional milk, research has shown,362 making some people feel milk without the label unsafe. This is one battle food activists largely won, as most milk producers now prefer to sell rBST-free milk.

Consumer sentiment has opposed the rBST hormone with much greater intensity than synthetic growth hormones in beef cattle. Why? Probably because rBST involves genetically modified organisms (GMOs), something food activists particularly dislike. And the louder food activists shout the more consumers listen to them. Although more than 90% of beef cattle receive synthetic hormones, that percentage for dairy cows is less than 25%.363

Antibiotics and livestock: by F. Bailey Norwood and Pascal Oltenacu

Got review from Dr. Richard Raymond and incorporated some of his suggestions.

Tyson Foods: robert George (a vice-president) 4792904076, reviewed and approved in full

You come down with a cold, so you go to the doctor. Most colds are caused by viruses, not bacteria, but some doctors prescribe antibiotics anyway. It won’t make the cold go away. It won’t make you feel better, save for any placebo effects. Antibiotics can only target bacteria, not viruses. So why do some doctors prescribe it? Probably because patients expect something, and will be unsatisfied if given nothing.