DDI-Meat DA

8/3/2019 DDI-Meat DA

1/40

Berthiaume/Quinn Dartmouth 2k9

2009 Marissa Wizig

Meat

Meat.........................................................................................................................................................................1Strategy....................................................................................................................................................................21NC..........................................................................................................................................................................3

1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................4Production Low .......................................................................................................................................................5Production Low .......................................................................................................................................................6Production Low- Sustained......................................................................................................................................7Production Slowing .................................................................................................................................................8Consumption will Decline.......................................................................................................................................9Consumption Low .................................................................................................................................................10Poverty Decline=Beef Demand ............................................................................................................................11Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................................................12CO2 emissions.......................................................................................................................................................13CO2 impacts...........................................................................................................................................................14

Methane Emissions ...............................................................................................................................................15Methane Impacts....................................................................................................................................................16Nitrous Oxide ........................................................................................................................................................17Deforestation .........................................................................................................................................................18Deforestation Impacts............................................................................................................................................19Soil Erosion ...........................................................................................................................................................20Soil Erosion Impacts .............................................................................................................................................21Dead Zones ...........................................................................................................................................................22Water Pollution .....................................................................................................................................................23Ogallala Aquifer ....................................................................................................................................................24Ogallala Aquifer Impacts.......................................................................................................................................25

Air Pollution...........................................................................................................................................................25Air Pollution Impacts.............................................................................................................................................27...............................................................................................................................................................................27Health Impacts.......................................................................................................................................................28Water Scarcity .......................................................................................................................................................29Food Scarcity ........................................................................................................................................................30Food Scarcity ........................................................................................................................................................31Pathogen Transfer..................................................................................................................................................32Infectious Disease..................................................................................................................................................33Infectious Disease Impacts....................................................................................................................................34Food Borne Illness ................................................................................................................................................35Antibiotic Resistance.............................................................................................................................................36Antibiotic Extensions ............................................................................................................................................37Antibiotic Extensions ............................................................................................................................................38AFF STUFF ..........................................................................................................................................................39Consumption High ................................................................................................................................................39Consumption Growing...........................................................................................................................................40

moo

1


2/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Strategy

This is a very easy disad, which is basically an impact turn to the idea that poverty reduction isgood. When you decrease poverty, put more money in the hands of more people. This leads toan increase in the amount of beef purchased. The basic laws of economics dictate that increased

demand leads to increased production. Beef production is bad. The 1NC impact scenario isantibiotic resistance, but there are about 15 other impact scenarios in the rest of the file. Someof them have terminal impacts attached, some you can just use if they interact well with thecase.

This is a very self explanatory disad, and it works well because it is actually true. You might want to considervegetarianism after reading it.

moo

2


3/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

1NCThe weak economy is causing decreases in beef consumption

Mintert, Professor @ KSTATE, 2009James Mintert, Professor in the department of agriculture at kstate, January 2009 Beef Demand Drivers Kansas State Universityhttp://www.beefboard.org/news/files/factsheets/Beef_Demand_Drivers_January_2009.pdf

Looking ahead, weakness in the U.S. macroeco nomic outlook for 2009 suggests that a decline in percapita consumer income can be expected. Moreover, the impact of weaker consumer income is expectedto be compounded by consumers desire to increase savings in response to uncertainty and risk presentin the financial and real estate markets. An increase in consumer savings means consumptionexpenditures will decline even more rapidly than income and, given the importance of consumerexpenditures, a decline in U.S. retail beef demand is likely during 2009 . Longer term, it is unlikely thatdomestic beef demand will rebound until the U.S. economy strengthens and consumers regain enoughconfidence to spend more of their income . Since the beef industry can do little to dampen the industry-wideeffect of this macroeconomic demand determinant, it will be important to focus resources in areas where noticeableimpacts are possible

Beef Demand is directly correlated to US consumer wealth- as poverty declines, beef consumptionincreases


Consumer income increased steadily from the early 1980s through 2007, averaging about 6 percentcompound annual growth. Personal consumption expenditures grew even more rapidly than income during this timeas consumers consistently reduced their personal savings rate (Figure 1). In the early 1980s, personal savings ranged fromabout 8 to 12 percent of disposable income, but the savings rate declined steadily and by 2007 averaged less than 1 percent.

This is important because it reveals that consumers were allocating nearly all of their income to livingexpenses with little money left for savings by late 2007, just as the U.S. economy was entering arecession. Demand model results reveal beef demand is very responsive to changes in consumer

expenditures on goods and services. On average, a 1 percent increase in U.S. consumer total expendituresresults in a 0.9 percent increase in the quantity of beef demanded . Results indicate that from 1982 through2007, beef demand benefitted from increases in consumer incomes and from consumer willingness to increase consumption

expenditures even more rapidly than income was increasing. In other words, the beef demand decline experiencedfrom 1980 through 1998 would have been even more severe if incomes were not growing andconsumers were not reducing personal savings rates during this time.

Higher demand will lead to increased beef production


Large shifts in domestic beef demand have had substantial impacts on the beef industry. Before the late1970s, growth in the U.S. economy and rising consumer incomes contributed to beef demand increasingfor a sustained period. In response to growing product demand, the beef industry increased in size.However, starting about 1980, domestic retail beef demand weak ened and subsequently declined everyyear through 1998. The long-run decline in retail beef demand contributed to a reduction in cattle industrysize, particularly in relation to competing meat sectors such as poultry and pork. In 1999, following nearly 20 consecutiveyears of decline, domestic beef demand began to strengthen. From the late 1990s through 2004, the all fresh domestic retailbeef demand index increased from a low of 76 to a peak of 92, before weakening again from 2005 through 2008.

moo

3


4/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

1NCLivestock industry antibiotic use causes antibiotic resistanceGilchrist 07

Mary J. Gilchrist, David B. Wallinga, George W. Beran, David G. Riley, and Peter S. Thorne, February 2007 The Potential Role ofConcentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Infectious Disease Epidemics and Antibiotic Resistance Environmental HealthPerspectives, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 313-316

Increased antibiotic resistance can be traced to the use and overuse of antibiotics. Much of that use occursin human medicine. Health care policy and practice changes designed to minimize this phenomenon are in place in many

countries, yet much more can be done. Although antibiotic overuse in animals is problematic, the magnitude of theproblem is unknown. There is no national mechanism for collecting data on antibiotic use in many countries and thepharmaceutical industry treats production and sales figures as confidential business information. However, the Union of

Concerned Scientists (2001) has estimated that 11.2 million kg of the antibiotics used annually in the UnitedStates are administered to livestock as growth promoters. This compares with their estimate of 1.4million kg for human medical use. Their estimates indicate that 87% of all antibiotic use is for animals,while 13% is for human therapeutic and nontherapeutic use. One researcher suggests lower figures forantibiotic use in growth promotion, stating that no more than 40% of antibiotics in the United States isfor animals (Levy 1998).

Antibiotic Resistance is the biggest threat we face as humans

Sterling, Prof @European Grad school, 95Bruce Sterling, Professor of Media and Design @ European Graduate School, February 1995 Bitter Resistance F&SF ScienceColumn #15http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/FSF_columns/fsf.15

At the close of this century, antibiotic resistance is one of the gravest threats that confronts the human race. It ranksin scope with overpopulation, nuclear disaster, destruction of the ozone, global warming, species extinctionand massive habitat destruction. Although it gains very little attention in comparison to those other horrorsthere is nothing theoretical or speculative about antibiotic resistance. The mere fact that we can't see it happeningdoesn't mean that it's not taking place. It is occurring, stealthily and steadily, in a world which we polluted

drastically before we ever took the trouble to understand it. We have spent billions to kill bacteria bumere millions to truly comprehend them. In our arrogance, we have gravely underestimated our enemy'spower and resourcefulness. Antibiotic resistance is a very real threat which is well documented and increasingat considerable speed. In its scope and its depth and the potential pain and horror of its implications, it maythe greatest single menace that we human beings confront -- besides, of course, the steady increase in our own numbersAnd if we don't somehow resolve our grave problems with bacteria, then bacteria may well resolve that population problem for us.

moo

4
http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/FSF_columns/fsf.15http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/FSF_columns/fsf.15http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/FSF_columns/fsf.15


5/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Production LowBeef Production is down

Hurt, Purdue University, 8-3-09Chris Hurt, Purdue University, August 3, 2009; Purdue Outlook, if they buy cars they will buy beefhttp://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=335501

Consumers are beginning to feel a little better about their household budgets. If they will buy more cars, then surely they

will also be willing to buy more beef. Granted, the cash for clunkers program added large incentives to buy new cars, butthe willingness of consumers to pay for big ticket purchases probably means the bite of recession is beginning to ease.

The recession has cut deeply into cattle producer finances as loss of beef demand has ravaged cattleprices. So far this year,beef production has been down three percent, but finished cattle prices have beendown by ten percent. Nebraska finished steers averaged only $82.70 per hundredweight so far this year compared with$92.30 for the same period in 2008. That is nearly $10 per hundredweight lower prices with a smaller supply. Calf priceshave been about $9 per hundredweight lower this year compared to last.

Cattle production down, statistics proveHenderson, July 28Greg Henderson, July 28 2009; Declines continue for cattle inventories, beef supplies, exports; Drovers Online

http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=5830Cattle numbers may be declining, but lower supplies are not translating into a rally for prices. Thatsbecause beefdemand is significantly softer this year, for both domestic use and exports.USDAs semi-annual CattleInventory report showed a decline of 1.5 million head, totaling 101.8 million head. It was the thirdconsecutive year of decline, and the lowest mid-year total in 37 years.Despite declining beef cow slaughterduring 2009, the mid-year inventory of beef cows was 450,000 head smaller, totaling 32.2 million head. Compared with a

decade ago, the nations beef cow herd is now more than 2 million head smaller.Declines in the cow herd are attributedto dry weather over much of the plains states the past year, significantly higher feed and fuels costs, and a recession thathas softened demand for beef and caused significant losses for cattle feeders.

moo

5


6/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Production LowBeef production is on the decline

Maday; July 10John Maday; July 10 2009; Feedgrain supplies up, beef lower in new report; http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=5727

The report estimates total U.S. meat production for 2009 will fall behind that of 2008, primarily becauseof lower beef output. Pork production was higher than expected during the second quarter, but is likely to drop offthrough the rest of the year. The report estimates higher broiler production during the second and thirdquarters, but the increases are not enough to offsets the decline in beef production .The beef-productionforecast for 2009 is based on lower expected feedlot placements and slightly lighter average carcassweights. For the longer term, the market will watch for USDAs mid-year Cattle Inventory report, to be released on July24, which will provide an indication of breeding herd retention and the number of cattle outside feedlots. The WASDEreport projects beef production for 2010 slightly lower, but total U.S. meat production higher with increases inpork and broiler output.

Beef production down compared to last year

Maday; July 27John Maday; July 27 2009; Slaughter lags but beef prices improving;http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=5824; Drovers online

Steer and heifer slaughterand beef production were down again last week, with USDA estimating a total of595,000 head through Friday, compared with 626,000 head for the same period last year. Beefproduction was down proportionately, as slaughter weights, averaging 1,279 pounds, remain about thesame as at this time last year.TCFA reports fed steer and heifer prices averaging about $83 perhundredweight last week. USDA reports national averages just slightly higher, with steers averaging $83.40 andheifers $83.10. olesale beef prices gained some ground last week, with the Choice cutout on Monday averaging $138.63 perhundredweight and finishing on Friday at $142.82 per hundredweight. The weekly average was up about $4 over theprevious week.

moo

6


7/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Production Low- SustainedMeat production will be low through 2011.

Paul Wescottand Edwin Young February 12, 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Baseline/livestock.htm

Production adjustments in response to high grain and soybean meal prices in 2007 and 2008 continue to ripple through

the livestock sector in the first several years of the projections. Additionally, demand is somewhat weakened due to thedomestic recession and global economic slowdown. Thus, with producer returns squeezed in 2008 and rebounding onlyslightly over the next few years, total U.S. meat and poultry production declines through 2011. These productionadjustments combine with strengthening meat exports to reduce domestic per capita consumption through 2012. Theresult is lower production at higher prices, with improving net returns providing economic incentives for moderate expansionin the sector toward the end of the projection period.

moo

7


8/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Production SlowingAgricultural production is high now but is slowing down

Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06Pew Commission on Industrial Farm production; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health Putting Meat on the Table 2006http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf

Animal agriculture has experienced warp speed growth over the last 50 years, with intensificationresulting in an almost logarithmic increase in numbers . The availability of high-yield and inexpensive grains hasfueled this increase and allowed for continually increasing rates of growth in order to feed the burgeoning human

population. However, diminished fossil fuel supplies, global climate change, declining freshwateravailability, and reduced availability of arable land all suggest that agricultural productivity gains inthe next 50 years may be far less dramatic than the rates of change seen over the last 100 years.

moo

8


9/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Consumption will Decline

The weak economy is causing declines in beef consumption


Looking ahead, weakness in the U.S. macroeco nomic outlook for 2009 suggests that a decline in percapita consumer income can be expected. Moreover, the impact of weaker consumer income is expectedto be compounded by consumers desire to increase savings in response to uncertainty and risk presentin the financial and real estate markets. An increase in consumer savings means consumptionexpenditures will decline even more rapidly than income and, given the importance of consumerexpenditures, a decline in U.S. retail beef demand is likely during 2009 . Longer term, it is unlikely thatdomestic beef demand will rebound until the U.S. economy strengthens and consumers regain enoughconfidence to spend more of their income . Since the beef industry can do little to dampen the industry-wideeffect of this macroeconomic demand determinant, it will be important to focus resources in areas where noticeableimpacts are possible

moo

9


10/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Consumption LowBeef Consumption falling economy, job losses, are all reducing U.S. beef prices and production.

Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, USDA 2/17/2009

Wholesale cutout values have been below year-earlier levels 7 out of the last 10 weeks. This decline in values is due to acombination of factors. One factor is the inability of packers to sufficiently clear product from building inventories. Coldstorage stocks have increased since midsummer 2008 as a result of reduced orders for U.S. beef in international beef

markets. Seasonal consumption patterns of reduced demand for middle meats, popular for summer grilling, are alsocontributing to increasing cold storage stocks. Increased job losses and other aspects of current domestic economicconditions have dampened consumers willingness to dine away from home except in fast-food and casual dining

establishments. This decline in eating out has resulted in a shift away from higher quality beef to lower priced beef cutsand processing beef(e.g., ground products) and a narrowing of the spread between Choice and Select cutout values.Lower prices for meat products from pork and poultry are also contributing to downward pressures on beef prices.While packers have recently enjoyed positive margins, declining supplies of fed cattle and the potential for lower retail

prices are expected to squeeze packer margins.

moo

10


11/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Poverty Decline=Beef Demand

Increased income increases meat consumption

Richard Perren Taste, Trade, and Technology December 2006 http://books.google.com/books?id=b3HOpjIMQOkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s

In the nineteenth century beef was seen on both sides of the Atlantic as the leading meat in consumer demand. Over the period as awhole the increased per capita consumption of all meats was an important function of the rise in personal income levels.The strength and profitableness of the meat industry was very often measured by its relative price and, as the most expensive toproduce and the most desirable to consume, beef was always the price leader. In times of depression, with low wages and highunemployment, people would turn to cheaper mutton and pig meat that is if they were still able to afford meat at all - but beef wasstill the first preference among Western consumers. By the 1970s beef consumption had come to symbolize the good life throughout thewestern world. In the United States steak had become to meat what Cadillac was to cars.21 In Europe and the United Kingdom thecontrast with the enforced austerity of meat rationing in the wartime and immediate post-war years was particularly sharp. Inthe United States annual per-capita consumption peaked in the mid-1970s, but declined thereafter. 26 Prior to that time, writers on theindustry viewed future changes in the demand for beef purely in terms of its traditional determining factors, such as fluctuations inpersonal income levels, changes in production costs, farmers' responses to the state of the cattle cycle and possible alterations intrade policies.2 There was certainly no suggestion that producers might have to face a serious long-term fall in consumer demand

for this meat.

Increasing income leads to more meat demand and livestock production.

Patrick J. Catania, Chicago Board of Trade, and PeterAlonzi, Chicago Board of Trade. 1997 CommodityTrading Manual

In addition to carryover, yield, and weather, there are other significant economic conditions that affect commodity prices.There is a relationship between the livestock and grain markets. For instance, affluent consumers are more likely to eat redmeat, which in turn, influences the demand for livestock. A rise in livestock numbers increases the consumption of feed,which contains large amounts of corn. This eventually decreases the supply of corn. On the other hand, the less moneyavailable to consumers, the less spent on more expensive foods like red meat.

moo

11


12/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Environmental ImpactsLivestock Industry causes enormous environmental problems

Matthews, FAO, 2006Christopher Matthews, FAO Livestock a major threat to the environment; November 26 2006http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

The consequences of this increased consumption are no small matter. The livestock sector emerges as one of the top twoor three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, on every scale from local to global,4according to the latest report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) about the effects of the livestockindustry on the environment, entitled Livestocks Long Shadow. And they have plenty of evidence for the statement.First of all, the livestock industry is becoming a significant source of climate changing greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change causes loss of biodiversity and extinction

(Nature publishing group, January 2004, http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html)Many plant and animal species are unlikely to survive climate change. New analyses suggest that1537% of a sample of1,103 land plants and animals would eventually become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050. For someof these species there will no longer be anywhere suitable to live. Others will be unable to reach places where the climate issuitable. A rapid shift to technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases, combined with carbon sequestration, could save1520% of species from extinction. The cover shows a species in the firing line. Boyd's forest dragon, Hypsilurus boydii, isfound in Queensland, Australia. About 90% of its distribution would become climatically unsuitable by 2050, onmaximum climate warming scenarios.

moo

12


13/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

CO2 emissions

The livestock industry is a huge emitter of greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2

Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07Jens Holms and Tovio Jokkala; The Livestock Industry and Climate, published by the Swedish left party; GUE NGL;http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/library/focus/meat_climate_report_en.pdf

First of all, the livestock industry is becoming a significant source of climate changing greenhouse gasemissions.When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, most people think of carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions. And withrespect to carbon dioxide emissions the first thing one thinks of is the burning of fossil fuels, for example in the transportsector. Even people and animals emit carbon dioxide when they exhale, but theses emissions are normally absorbed by theplant life of the planet. The simplified picture is that these emissions are part of a biological cycle, while emissions from the

burning of fossil fuels creates a net increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But when it comes to the totalgreen house emissions from livestock the picture is more complicated. To begin with, even the livestocksector is a significant source of net emissions of carbon dioxide. Among other things, it has to do with the factthat forests thatpreviously absorbed carbon dioxide have been cut down to make room for pasture andland for planting animal fodder crops. According to the report Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon,

published by the World Bank in 2004, as much as 88% of deforested surfaces in the Amazon may have beenconverted to pasture for livestock.5 It is calculated that about 9% of global carbon dioxide emissionsfrom human activity originate from raising livestock, although the numbers are still uncertain.6Another factor inthis context is that the fodder crops that are grown as food for livestock are being transported ever increasing distances.

This leads to greater use of fossil fuels, which further increases carbon dioxide emissions.

The agricultural sector contributes to a large percentage of US greenhouse gas emissions


Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from all livestock operations account for 18% of anthropogenic

greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding those from the transportation sector (Steinfeld et al., 2006).Agriculture accounts for 7.4% of the total US release of greenhouse gases (epa, 2007a). Animals producegreenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide during the digestion process. Other greenhousegases, primarily nitrous oxide, arise mainly from the microbial degradation of manure. Additional emissionsresult from degradation processes in uncovered waste lagoons and anaerobic digesters. The global warmingpotential of these emissions, compared to a value of one for carbon dioxide, is 62 for methane and 275 fornitrous oxide on a 20-year time horizon. The US epa Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report data for agriculturalinputs are summarized below. Emission control solutions are now being examined by the epa, along withpossible opportunities for carbon credits and credit trading (Jensen, 2006).

moo

13


14/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

CO2 impactsWarming causes extinction

Terry L. Deibel, professor of IR @ National War College, 2007, Foreign Affairs Strategy, Conclusion: American ForeignAffairs Strategy Today

Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which,though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate uponwhich all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decadesnow, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of morethan 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted thatanthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtuallyimpossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vastinternational scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: aninternational panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climatechange could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera andmalaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants areblooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant globalincrease in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute tomore than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to

Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating,concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we justcall it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrialrevolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). Atpresent they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels.Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slowtheir increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects willbe. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in moreviolent storms, spread ofdisease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation oflow-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenlandand West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinasouter banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Anothercatastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe

far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the UnitedStates alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent ofGDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup ofwater vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions,associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no onewas then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can concludeis that humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette withthe earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New YorkUniversity, were just going to burn everything up; were going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in theCretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomerCarl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and theSoviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-ColdWar eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically . Over the long run

it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet .

moo

14


15/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Methane EmissionsLivestock industry is a huge contributer to methane emissions


Carbon dioxide is far from the only greenhouse gas. The Kyoto Protocol7 names five other significant greenhouse gaseswhose emissions must be lowered. Two of them are of particular interest when considering the livestock industrys

environmental impact: methane and nitrous oxide. Methane (CH4) is a gas that, per unit of weight, has aneffect on global warming that is 23 times stronger than that of carbon dioxide.8 In the past 200 years, thelevels of methane in the atmosphere have doubled from 0.8 to 1.7 parts per million by volume. Between 35% and 40%of global methane emissions attributable to human activity come from livestocks digestion process.9Livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats produce significant amounts of methane viadigestion.10 A single cow is estimated to produce, on average, 600 liters of methane per day.

Methane is the worst greenhouse gas and it is primarily produced by the agricultural sector

Mohr 06 Noam Mohr; December 2006; The McDougall Newsletter; A new global warming strategyhttp://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/globalwarming.htm

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases puttogether.18 Methane is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.19 While atmosphericconcentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more thandoubled.20 Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half

times as much methane as all natural sources.21 In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compoundedas methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlandstheprimary natural source of methane.22 With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planets human-inducedwarming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and

landfillsbut the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture.23 Animal agriculture producesmore than 100 million tons of methane a year.24 And this source is on the rise : global meat consumptionhas increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. 25 About 85% of this methane isproduced in the digestive processes of livestock,26 and while a single cow releases a relatively smallamount of methane,27 the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animalsworldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massivelagoons used to store untreated farm animal waste,28 and already a target of environmentalists for their role as a primary

source of water pollution in the U.S.29The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warmingin our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products . Simply by going vegetarian(or, strictly speaking, vegan), 30,31,32 we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gasresponsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today

moo

15


16/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Methane ImpactsMethane Emissions cause extinction

The Sun News, 2008 (Scientist uncovers methane menace Wesley Hughes, 06/07/08)

He calls it the Doomsday Scenario. Imagine alligators swimming at the North Pole. It happened once and it could happen again if Martin Kennedy'shypothesis comes true. And if Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" made you nervous, imagine something 50 times worse. If we as a society can't stop it, it could meanthe end of civilization. Kennedy says, "I don't know how a nuclear power could survive if most of its population is dying." Kennedy is no nut case. He's a highlyrespected professor of geology at UC Riverside; and his scenario was published recently in the journal Nature. It involves something no one had paid much attention to

before: methane. We in the Inland Empire are familiar with it as a byproduct of cow poop. But Kennedy's methane is no BS, cowboy. It's trapped in the permafrost

under the ice cap in high latitudes at the top of the world. If the ice cap melts - as the Greenland ice sheet rapidly is - the methane will bereleased and methane is 50 times more active than carbon as a greenhouse gas, the scientist said. The Earth has 5,000 gigatonsof carbon dioxide in its deposits of oil and natural gas. Big numbers. But there are 10,000 gigatons of methane under the ice sheets and inthe ocean floor near the coasts. That's twice the amount of the carbon dioxide and 100 times more powerful. Methane lingers in the atmosphere for five or 10 years

before oxidation converts it to carbon dioxide. The more methane released as the ice melts, the warmer it becomes, melting more icereleasing increasingly more methane. As the ice melts, the planet loses its reflectability - the albedo effect - absorbing more of the heat from the sunand increasing the warmth. It's like putting your hand on a white car in the hot summer sun and then putting it on a black one. "Ouch." Total meltdown of theGreenland ice sheet would deepen the oceans by 20 feet, flooding places like New York City and turning Florida into a reef. Kennedy began working on his hypothesisfive years ago and his research took him back to his native Australia. There he found ancient methane seeps that could be tied to earlier global ice melts and the

"Snowball Earth" of 635 million years ago. That occurred just before animal life appeared on Earth, Kennedy said, "suggesting some kind of environmental link."The life possibly kick-started by the first methane age could be wiped out by a second. The tipping point for that

phenomenon is unknown, Kennedy said. It occurred the first time when methane was loosed in a runaway feedback. The tipping point for a newmethane age could occur in a decade, Kennedy said. But we are primed for it and when it occurs the world could warm at a rate of tens of degrees."It's an abrupt mechanism," Kennedy said. "It's an entirely different climate- warming scenario. In the first global warming fromcarbon dioxide, the Earth didn't go through catastrophic change. "We thinkwe are increasing the probability of abrupt climate change,"the scientist said. "When we understand the tipping point," Kennedy said, we'll be able to better predict the climate's future in the next century." He said the Greenlandice sheet is not stable and is melting rapidly. Fourteen of the past 20 years have been the hottest in world history, Kennedy said. A methane age would wreak havocwith the climate, plant and animal life and humanity, Kennedy said. The results are unpredictable and could be catastrophic with more Hurricane Katrinas, dust bowls,monsoons, floods and famine. The scientist is director of the Global Climate and Environmental Change Program, a two-year master's degree program at UCR.

moo

16


17/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Nitrous Oxide

Livestock industry is a major source of nitrous oxide emissions


Nitrous oxide (N2O), also called laughing gas, has an even stronger effect on climate: 296 times stronger thancarbon dioxide over a hundred-year period.11Nitrous oxide can be formed in different ways when nitrogen reactswith oxygen. Livestock production produces enormous quantities of nitrogen that can become nitrous oxide. Intotal, livestock account for two-thirds of all nitrous oxide emissions caused by human activity.12Nitrogen isreleased from the fertilizers used on the fodder crops. It is also released from the urine and the excrement of theanimals, as well as stored manure. FAO estimates that we will see a significant increase in these kinds ofemissions from livestock production in the future

moo

17


18/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

DeforestationLivestock raising is a major contributor to the destructions of the rainforest


In order to produce protein-rich fodder you have to grow protein-rich crops. And that requires space; a lot of space. Today,

livestock raising takes up 30% of the earths land surface. Seventy-eight percent of the total cultivableland area (including different types of pasture land) is used in some way for raising farm animals. Of theactual arable land, 33% is used to raise animals.16 With increased production of high-quality protein, more land has to be

utilized. And the southern hemisphere is where it occurs most frequently. In Brazil, between 1965 and 1997,planting of the protein rich soybean increased by fifty times.17 Today, Brazil accounts for 26% of the worlds productionof soybeans.18 The majority of Brazils soybeans is exported to Europe as animal fodder. Fields of soybeans for meat

production occupy ever greater areas of Brazil. Nature is impacted negatively by the devastation of rain forest,savannahs and other diversity-rich environments and by the spread of chemicals. In spite of the factthat the rain forests occupy only 6% of the earths land area, they have enormous significance foranimal and plant life. The rain forests ability to fix carbon dioxide is, as pointed out above, an important factor in

countering the greenhouse effect. Thus, indirectly, even the growing of fodder crops spurs climate change.

Livestock are responsible for major deforestation


Livestock now use 30 percent of the earths entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but alsoincluding 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. Asforests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in LatinAmerica where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over

to grazing.

Livestock industry in Brazil causes deforestation

Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 5-17-8 Brazil's forest loss now linked to world food priceshttp://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/features/article_1405101.php/Brazils_forest_loss

In two states, Mato Grosso and Para, where about 70 per cent of Brazil's deforestation has taken place in recent times, thearea converted to farmland in the first quarter of this year spiked to 214 square kilometres from 77 one year ago.Although itwas the rainy season, the early time of year when the chainsaws are usually less active, an area equivalent in size to 21,400football pitches was cleared of trees between January and March, the Brazilian environmental authorities say.As previous

host of the UN Biodiversity Conference, the Brazilians are likely to be apologetic about their inability to rein in theranchers as they hand over the chairmanship to Germany at the May 19-30 event.The world food crisis has actuallyweakened the hand of environmentalists in Brazilian politics who are trying to conserve the untouched forests as abiodiversity treasure trove.

moo

18
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/features/article_1405101.php/Brazils_forest_losshttp://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/features/article_1405101.php/Brazils_forest_losshttp://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/features/article_1405101.php/Brazils_forest_loss


19/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Deforestation Impacts

moo

19


20/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Soil ErosionGrowing fodder for livestock to consume leads to soil erosion


Due to periods of intensive rain, the planted fields often increase the risk of soil erosion. Depleted farmsoil means new areas have to be cleared to create more fields for planting.Ruminants eat a greater amount of roughage than pigs and chickens, for example pasturage and harvested silage or hay. But

the trend is towards feeding even these animals ever greater quantities of high-value protein-richfodder: for example, soybeans. Previously, in Europe, the livestock industry used meat and bone meal in cattle feed.This proved to be a factor in mad cow disease. The meat and bone meal has been replaced by even moresoybeans on a large scale.

moo

20


21/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Soil Erosion Impacts

Soil erosion threatens all life.

Horne and McDermott 2001 (James E., PhD and Maura, The next green revolution, p 69)Conserving healthy soil by guarding it against erosion or other forces that would degrade it is the most basic step. This stephas as its corollary actively building soil health, because soil used for agricultural purposes today is not as healthy as it could

be. It is both less diverse and less active biologically. Without healthy topsoil, the world cannot begin to feed its billionsAlthough American popular culture discourse in recent years has speculated the fate of line on earth in case of alien invasionasteroid bombardment, or rampaging killer viruses, the slow loss of quality soil is more of a threat to life on the planet thanany of these scenarios.

moo

21


22/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Dead Zones

Livestock production contributes to water contamination which creates toxic dead zones


Agricultural runoff laden with chemicals (synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) and nutrients is suspectedas a major culprit responsible for many dead zones in both inland and marine waters, affecting anestimated 173,000 miles of US waterways (Cook, 1998). Animal farming is also estimated to account for 55% of soil andsediment erosion, and more than 30% of the nitrogen and phosphorus loading in the nations drinking water resources

(Steinfeld et al., 2006). ifap facilities in high-risk areas such as floodplains are particularly vulnerable toextreme weather events that increase the risk, and quantity, of runoff. Flood events overwhelm thestorage capacity of ifap liquid manure lagoons and cause catastrophic contamination that results invery large fish kills.

moo

22


23/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Water Pollution

Livestock Industry causes increased water contamination


Nitrate is another important drinking water contaminant, regulated under epas Safe Drinking Water Act. Itseffects on humans include diseases such as hyperthyroidism (Seffner, 1995; Tajtakova et al., 2006) and insulin-dependent diabetes (Kostraba et al., 1992), as well as increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomes andneurodevelopmental defects (Arbuckle et al., 1988; Burkholder et al., 2007). The US epa sets allowable limits fornitrate of 10 mg / l in public drinking water supplies and requires tertiary treatment or amendment with groundwater before

distribution (epa, 2006). The presence of agricultural chemicals in surface waters contributes to the growthof cyanobacteria and other microorganisms that may be especially harmful to people with depressed orimmature immune systems (Rao et al., 1995; Shi et al., 2004). It is also recognized that ammonia emissionsfrom livestock contribute significantly to the eutrophication and acidification of soils and waters.Eutrophication is an excessive richness of nutrients in a body of water, mostly nitrates and phosphates

from erosion and runoff of surrounding lands, that causes a dense growth of plant life and the death ofanimal life due to lack of oxygen. Some level of eutrophication occurs naturally, but this process can beaccelerated by human activities. Acidification can put stress on species diversity in the naturalenvironment. Reduction of ammonia emissions from cafos requires covering of manure storage tanksand reservoirs and the direct injection of controlled quantities of manure slurry into soil only during thegrowing season. Land application of manure during winter months or rainy weather leads to significantrunoff into surface waters.

moo

23


24/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Ogallala AquiferLivestock irrigation practices harm the Ogallala aquifer, compromising drinking water for the entire US


Like other aspects of ifap (such as manure disposal), crop production for animal feed places enormous demand on waterresources: 87% of the use of freshwater in the US is used in agriculture, primarily irrigation (Pimentel et al., 1997). For

example, it takes nearly 420 gallons of water to produce one pound of grain-fed broiler chicken (Pimentel et al., 1997).ifap operations in arid or semiarid regions are thus of particular concern because of their high waterdemand on the limited supply of water, much of it from aquifers that may have limited rechargecapacity. The 174,000-square-mile Ogallala aquifer, for example, is a fossil aquifer that dates back to the last ice ageand underlies parts of Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas . Irrigation has reduced theOgallala by more than half, and current depletion rates exceed 3.3 feet per year of water table level(McMichael, 1993; Soule and Piper, 1992). Because the aquifers very slow recharge rate is vastlyoutstripped by irrigation and other human needs, the aquifer is at risk of being fully depleted,

threatening not only agriculture but drinking water supplies for a huge area of the United States.

moo

24


25/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Ogallala Aquifer ImpactsCollapse of the Ogallala aquifer will lead to the collapse of civilizationThe Economist 3

July 19, 2003Irrigate and die

PRIVATISATION and dams may arouse great passion, but mispricing of water has far more serious effects. In truth, the storyof water almost everywhere involves abuse, waste and even tragedy. Nor are things getting better: indeed, much of the

worst damage has been wrought in the past 100 years. Water resources have been exploited with no heed either to

sustainability or to the environmental consequences. And water policy has suffered from a near-total disregard for the

discipline and tools of economics, especially pricing, trading and cost-benefit analysis. These failings are best illustrated

by looking at irrigation for farming, which has always consumed the lion's share of available water. Irrigation

catastrophes have befallen civilisations since the dawn of time.Archaeological evidence suggeststhat much of the Saharawas once a green and pleasant land, until depletion of groundwater turned it into desert. The Maya civilisation in

Mexico is thought to have ended because of a sudden drought. In what is now Arizona, Hohokam Indians developed a

remarkably sophisticated irrigation system. But too much irrigation waterlogs the ground, and when the water

evaporates it leaves salts behind. Just such a lethal salinisation seems to have overtaken the Hohokam, who died out

suddenly in the early 15th century. Sandra Postel, author of "Pillar of Sand", a book about irrigation, maintains that,

with the single exception of Egypt, no civilisation based on irrigation has survived for long, either because the water has

run out, or because of silt, or because of salinisation.Yet it is modern engineering that has made possible irrigation disasters

on a massive scale. The saddest is the tale of the Aral Sea, once the world's fourth-biggest inland sea. In the 1950s Sovietplanners, following Stalin's 1929 dictum that "water which is allowed to enter the sea is wasted", diverted large parts of the tworivers that feed the Aral, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, to irrigate cotton crops in the near-desert terrain of central Asia.The Aral soon started to dry up. Since 1960, it has shrunk by three-quarters in volume (see map, next page). Almost all the fishhave died out; a once-thriving fishing fleet that had supported several villages has disappeared. Moreover, rapidly risingsalinity has killed many crops, and salt in the air has damaged local people's health, increasing the incidence of cancers andrespiratory diseases. All this for a few million tonnes of heavily subsidised cotton, produced at the insistence of a regime thatcollapsed more than a decade ago. The Aral Sea may never recover, though its shrinkage seems to have slowed recently.Sovietcentral planners are not the only culprits. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein notoriously drained the marshes of the lower Tigris andEuphrates, home of the Marsh Arabs and possibly the site of the original garden of Eden. But big water projects for agriculturehave had unforeseen malign consequences in rich countries too. The history of the American west, for example, is one ofoverexploitation of limited water resources, mainly for the benefit of farmers, at huge cost to federal and state taxpayers andwith severe environmental side-effects. Cowboys and IndiansThe classic account of water in the American west is Marc

Reisner's book "Cadillac Desert". When the west was settled in the late 19th century, much of it was desert or semi-desert. Butinstead of encouraging settlers to adapt to this climate by, for instance, dry farming, the government decided to bring water tothem. This involved building a series of gigantic dams, as well as putting in hand huge water-diversion projects, fed by dams,or by siphoning water from the Colorado and other rivers, or by tapping groundwater. The Colorado's annual flow was"allocated" among the upstream and downstream states in a 1922 compact. Not only did this account for all the water in theriver, in line with the prevailing principle of not "wasting" water; because the numbers were based on several unusually wetyears, it allocated more water than is normally available.The biggest water projects of the 20th century were all in California.The most gigantic of them all is the Central Valley Project, a vast system of dams, pipes and channels that supplies irrigationwater to the farmers of the central valley at a tiny fraction of its cost. Together with the State Water Project that ran alongsideit, this made California's agriculture into one of the most productive in the world, the backbone of the state's economy. But italso entrenched lavish subsidies and polluted the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta. The worst example is the leaching ofselenium into Kesterson reservoir, where it has caused grotesque deformations in birds.Next in scale was the diversion ofColorado river water to the Imperial valley irrigation district in southern California. The Imperial valley now uses a fifth of the

Colorado's water (some two-thirds of what California is entitled to take from the river), mainly to grow such thirsty crops asalfalfa, rice and cotton. Indeed, half of California's water is now used for crops that are better suited to a wet environment thanto a semi-desert.Another staple of the American west is groundwater depletion. The dustbowl years of the 1930s drovemany mid-western farmers off the land, but the discovery of the Ogallala, a huge underground aquifer stretching from

South Dakota to west Texas, transformed agriculture's fortunes. Now, thanks to intensive pumping, the Ogallala

aquifer is being depleted at a rate eight times faster than it is being replenished. It could run out before the end of this

century. What will the mid-west do for water then?

Air Pollution

moo

25


26/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Livestock Industry leads to air pollution, multiple warrants


Air quality degradation is also a problem in and around ifap facilities because of the localized release

of significant quantities of toxic gases, odorous substances, and particulates and bioaerosols thatcontain a variety of microorganisms and human pathogens (further discussed in the public health section of thisreport). These compounds arise from feed, animals, manure, and microorganisms. Highly noxious odors areassociated with vapor phase chemicals and compounds adherent to particles. These agents emanate from livestockfacilities, waste storage reservoirs, and manure application sites, and all can be transported aeriallyfrom ifap facilities to neighbors or neighboring communities. Some of the most objectionable compounds arethe organic acids, which include acetic acid, butyric acids, valeric acids, caproic acids, and propanoic acid; sulfurcontainingcompounds such as hydrogen sulfide and dimethyl sulfide; and nitrogen-containing compounds including ammonia, methylamines, methyl pyrazines, skatoles, and indoles. Smells associated with these compounds are described as similar to thoseof rotten eggs or rotting vegetables (hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl sulfide), rancid butter (butyric acids), and feces (valericacid, skatole, indole).

moo

26


27/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Air Pollution ImpactsAir pollution will lead to extinction

Driesen 03(David, Associate Professor, Syracuse University College of Law. J.D. Yale Law School, 1989, Fall/Spring, 10Buff. Envt'l. L.J. 25, p. 26-8)

Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends andharming the health of both future and present generations . The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles thatare relevant to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs that isworth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aidunderstanding of sustainable development's meaning for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitledto a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainabledevelopment." While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects

a concern about the natural environment. Since air pollution damages both human health and the environmen t,air quality implicates both of these concerns. Lead, carbon monoxide, particulate, tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, andnitrogen oxides have historically threatened urban air quality in the United States. This review will focus upon troposphericozone, particulate, and carbon monoxide, because these pollutants present the most widespread of the remaining urban airproblems, and did so at the time of the earth summit. 6 Tropospheric ozone refers to ozone fairly near to the ground, as

opposed to stratospheric ozone high in the atmosphere. The stratospheric ozone layer protects human health and theenvironment from ultraviolet radiation, and its depletion causes problems. By contrast, tropospheric ozone damageshuman health and the environment. 8 In the United States, the pollutants causing "urban" air quality problems also affecthuman health and the environment well beyond urban boundaries. Yet, the health problems these pollutants present remain

most acute in urban and suburban areas. Ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate cause very serious publichealth problems that have been well recognized for a long time. Ozone forms in the atmosphere from a reaction betweenvolatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. Volatile organic compounds include a large number ofhazardous air pollutants. Nitrogen oxides, as discussed below, also play a role in acidifying ecosystems. Ozone damageslung tissue. It plays a role in triggering asthma attacks, sending thousands to the hospital every summer. It effects youngchildren and people engaged in heavy exercise especially severely. Particulate pollution, or soot, consists of combinationsof a wide variety of pollutants. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to formation of fine particulate, which isassociated with the most serious health problems. 13 Studies link particulate to tens of thousands of annual prematuredeaths in the United States. Like ozone it contributes to respiratory illness, but it also seems to play a [*29] role in

triggering heart attacks among the elderly. The data suggest that fine particulate, which EPA did not regulate explicitlyuntil recently, plays a major role in these problems. 16 Health researchers have associated carbon monoxide with varioustypes of neurological symptoms, such as visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor

learning ability, and difficulty in performing complex tasks. The same pollution problems causing current urbanhealth problems also contribute to long lasting ecological problems. Ozone harms crops and trees. These harmsaffect ecosystems and future generations. Similarly, particulate precursors, including nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide,contribute to acid rain, which is not easily reversible. To address these problems, Agenda 21 recommends the adoption ofnational programs to reduce health risks from air pollution, including urban air pollution. These programs are to includedevelopment of "appropriate pollution control technology . . . for the introduction of environmentally sound productionprocesses." It calls for this development "on the basis of risk assessment and epidemiological research." It also recommendsdevelopment of "air pollution control capacities in large cities emphasizing enforcement programs using monitoringnetworks as appropriate." A second principle, the precautionary principle, provides support for the first. As stated in theRio Declaration, the precautionary principle means that "lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason forpostponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation" when "there are threats of serious or irreversibledamage." Thus, lack of complete certainty about the adverse environmental and human health effects of air pollutants does

not, by itself, provide a reason for tolerating them. Put differently, governments need to address air pollution on aprecautionary basis to ensure that humans can life a healthy and productive life.

moo

27


28/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Health Impacts

Industrial food production creates a public health threat


As previously mentioned, one of the most serious unintended consequences of industrial food animalproduction ( ifap) is the growing public health threat of these types of facilities. In addition to thecontribution of ifap to the major threat of antimicrobial resistance (Smith et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2007), ifap facilitiescan be harmful to workers, neighbors, and even those living far from the facilities through air andwater pollution, and via the spread of disease . Workers in and neighbors of ifap facilities experience high levels ofrespiratory problems, including asthma (Donham and Gustafson, 1982; Donham et al., 1989; Donham et al., 1995; Donhamet al., 1985 a; Donham et al., 2007; Merchant et al., 2005; Mirabelli et al., 2006 a; Mirabelli et al., 2006 b; Sigurdarson andKline, 2006; Thu, 2002). In addition, workers can serve as a bridging population, transmitting animal-borne diseases to a

wider population (Myers et al., 2006; Saenz et al., 2006). A lack of appropriate treatment of enormous amountsof waste may result in contamination of nearby waters with harmful levels of nutrients and toxins, as

well as bacteria, fungi, and viruses (Nolan and Hitt, 2006; Peak et al., 2007), all of which can affect the healthof people both near and far from ifap facilities

moo

28


29/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Water ScarcityLivestock production increases the pressure on water resources


In many parts of the world water is scarce. With the spread of western meat-product consumption patterns tothose who can afford to emulate them in the poor parts of the world, pressure on water resources is increasedeven more. Producing a kilo of beef requires a total of approximately 15,000 liters of water; a kilo of chickentakes 3,5006,000 liters. By comparison, it takes only about 450 liters to produce a kilo of corn.

The livestock industry is a major cause of water scarcity and water pollution


The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earths increasingly scarce waterresources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration ofcoral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals fromtanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs watercycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts ofwater are withdrawn for the production of feed. Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source ofphosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

moo

29


30/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Food ScarcityThe production of livestock leads to food scarcity and hunger


Poor people in many parts of the world today cannot afford to buy the food available on the market . Thequestion of food supply is therefore a question of fairness. What will the situation be in 50 years? Does the productionof animal products threaten peoples future chances to avoid hunger?There is a risk of significantcompetition for food in the world of the future, with survival problems as a result, says social scientistSverker Jagers of Gothenburg University. The earths population will in all likelihood increase by three billion during the

next 50 years. Additionally, many people will be better off economically. Higher standards of life have led toincreased demand for meat and dairy products, almost irrespective of country or culture. Large quantities ofarable land are required to produce meat, especially beef. If the richer part of the world is prepared topay a high price for meat, there is a risk that the limited arable land will be used for that which is mostprofitable, namely to produce animal feed instead of food for human consumption.

Food products being used for feed for cattle leads to worldwide hunger

Rifkin 02Jeremy Rifkin, 5-17-2 The Worlds Problems on a Plate originally published in the Guardianhttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/0517-03.htm

Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry all over the world because much of the arable land isbeing used to grow feed grain for animals rather than for people.Cattle are among the most inefficientconverters of feed. In the US, 157 million metric tons of cereal, legumes and vegetable protein suitable for human use isfed to livestock to produce 28 million metric tons of animal protein for annual human consumption. The worldwidedemand for feed grain continues to grow, as multinational corporations seek to capitalize on the meatdemands of affluent countries. Two-thirds of the increases in grain production in the US and Europebetween 1950 and 1985, the boom years in agriculture, went to provide feed grain.

moo

30
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0517-03.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/0517-03.htm


31/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Food Scarcity

Livestock industry sucks food away from the poor causing hunger and starvation-Ethiopia proves

Rifkin 02Jeremy Rifkin, 5-17-2 The Worlds Problems on a Plate originally published in the Guardianhttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/0517-03.htm

Encouraging other nations to do this advances the interests of American farmers and agribusiness companies. Two-thirdsof all the grain exported from the US to other countries goes to feed livestock rather than to feedhungry people.Many developing nations climbed the protein ladder at the height of the agricultural boom, when "greenrevolution" technology was producing grain surpluses. In 1971 the Food and Agricultural Organization suggested switchingto coarse grains that could be more easily consumed by livestock. The US government provided further encouragement inits foreign aid program, tying food aid to development of feed grain markets. Companies like Ralston Purina and Cargillwere given low-interest government loans to establish grain-fed poultry operations in developing countries. Many nationsfollowed the advice of the FAO and have attempted to remain high on the protein ladder long after the surpluses of the

green revolution have disappeared.The shift from food to feed continues apace in many nations, with no signof reversal. The human consequences of the transition were dramatically illustrated in 1984 in Ethiopiawhen thousands of people were dying each day from famine. At the very same time Ethiopia was using some ofits agricultural land to produce linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for export to the UK and other European

nations as feed for livestock. Millions of acres of third world land are now being used exclusively toproduce feed for European livestock.

moo

31
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0517-03.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/0517-03.htm


32/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Pathogen Transfer

American animal production risks pathogen transfer, causing illness and disease


The potential for pathogen transfer from animals to humans is increased in ifap because so many animalsare raised together in confined areas. ifap feed and animal management methods successfully maximize the efficiency ofmeat or poultry production and shorten the time it takes to reach market weight, but they also create a number of opportunities

for pathogen transmission to humans. Three factors account for the increased risk: prolonged worker contact withanimals; increased pathogen transmission in a herd or flock; and increased opportunities for the generationof antibiotic-resistant bacteria or new strains of pathogens. Stresses induced by confinement may also increase thelikelihood of infection and illness in animal populations. Fifty years ago, a US farmer who raised pigs or chickens might be

exposed to several dozen animals for less than an hour a day. Todays confinement facility worker is often exposed tothousands of pigs or tens of thousands of chickens for eight or more hours each day. And whereas sick ordying pigs might have been a relatively rare exposure event 50 years ago, todays agricultural workers care

for sick or dying animals daily in their routine care of much larger herds and flocks. This prolonged contactwith livestock, both healthy and ill, increases agricultural workers risks of infection with zoonoticpathogens.

moo

32


33/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Infectious Disease

American animal production risks pathogen transfer, causing illness and disease


Numerous known infectious diseases can be transmitted between humans and animals; in fact, of themore than 1,400 documented human pathogens, about 64% are zoonotic (Woolhouse and Gowtage-Sequeria,2005; Woolhouse et al., 2001). In addition, new strains and types of infectious and transmissible agents arefound every year. Among the many ways that infectious agents can evolve to become more virulent orto infect people are numerous transmission events and co-infection with several strains of pathogens .For this reason, industrial farm animal production facilities that house large numbers of animals in veryclose quarters can be a source of new or more infectious agents. Healthy or asymptomatic animals maycarry microbial agents that can infect and sicken humans, who may then spread the infection to thecommunity before it is discovered in the animal population.

moo

33


34/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Infectious Disease Impacts

Infectious disease spread, especially animal-borne, results in extinction

South China Morning Post, 96(South China Morning Post, 1/4/96, Leading the way to a cure for AIDS. )

Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. Thereis a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virusdeadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS,the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 inthe former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensivestudy and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made

disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV."An

airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from

anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and

it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen."That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but DrBen -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDSon the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - whichturns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread.

Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happenanytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has

prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral

outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. Headded that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survivalof the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for

viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system."He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an exampleof how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World andrainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. " This raises thevery real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and

imperil the survival of the human race," he said.

moo

34


35/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Food Borne IllnessLivestock production risks food borne illnesses like ecoli, which lead to illness and death


Food production has always involved the risk of microbial contamination that can spread disease tohumans, and that risk is certainly not unique to ifap. However, the scale and methods common to ifapcan significantly affect pathogen contamination of consumer food products. All areas of meat, poultry,egg, and dairy production (e.g., manure handling practices, meat processing, transportation, and animalrendering) can contribute to zoonotic disease and food contamination (Gilchrist et al., 2007). Severalrecent and high-profile recalls involving E. Coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica serve as dramatic

reminders of the risk. Food-borne pathogens can have dire consequences when they do reach humanhosts. A 1999 report estimated that E. Coli O157:H7 infections caused approximately 73,000 illnesseseach year, leading to over 2,000 hospitalizations and 60 deaths each year in the United States (Mead etal., 1999). Costs associated with E. Coli O157:H7related illnesses in the United States were estimated at$405 million annually: $ 370 million for deaths, $ 30 million for medical care, and $5 million for lostproductivity (Frenzen et al., 2005). Animal manure, especially from cattle, is the primary source of these

bacteria, and consumption of food and water contaminated with animal wastes is a major route of human

infection. Because of the large numbers of animals in a typical ifap facility, pathogens can infect hundredsor thousands of animals even though the infection rate may be fairly low as a share of the totalpopulation. In some cases, it may be very difficult to detect the pathogen; Salmonella enterica (se), forexample, is known to colonize the intestinal tract of birds without causing obvious disease (Suzuki, 1994),although the infected hen ovaries then transfer the organism to the egg contents. Although the frequency ofse contamination in eggs is low (fewer than 1 in 20,000 eggs), the large numbers of eggs65 billionproduced in the United States each year means that contaminated eggs represent a significant source for

human exposure. Underscoring this point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc) estimatedthat se-contaminated eggs accounted for approximately 180,000 illnesses in the United States in 2000(Schroeder et al., 2005). The potential advantage of ifap in this circumstance is that concentrated productionand processing in fewer, larger facilities can result in improved product safety if regulations are properlyinstituted and vigilantly enforced

moo

35


36/40


2009 Marissa Wizig

Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotic resistance makes disease inevitable and leads to massive deathGilchrist 07

Mary J. Gilchrist, David B. Wallinga, George W. Beran, David G. Riley, and Peter S. Thorne, February 2007 The Potential Role of

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Infectious Disease Epidemics and Antibiotic Resistance Environmental HealthPerspectives, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 313-316

Antibiotic resistance is increasing among most human pathogens. The many bacteria resistant tomultiple antibiotics in particular has heightened concern. In some cases there are few or no antibioticsavailable to treat resistant pathogens [Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1998; Mlbak et al. 1999]. Development of newantibiotic classes has lagged behind pharmaceutical in

DDI-Meat DA

Documents