Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Why We Need to Rise up Against Industrial Agriculture (Again)

By Will Allen, AlterNet. Posted May 3, 2008.


Much of our food supply is based on entrepreneurial gambling that relies on chemical pesticides and fertilizers to make huge profits.
picture1
war on bugs
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article is adapted from Will Allen's new book The War on Bugs (Chelsea Green, 2008).

With one member trimming beef in a cannery, and another working in a sausage factory, the family had a first-hand knowledge of the great majority of Packingtown swindles. For it was the custom, as they found, whenever meat was so spoiled that it could not be used for anything else, either to can it or else chop it up into sausage.

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle described the most disgusting practices in the preparation, preservation, and canning of rotten meat. His expos helped create the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which came into being to watch over food safety issues. That was a hundred years ago. Our food supply is now worse than ever, filled with pesticides and pharmaceuticals that are both unnecessary and which are radically harming our ability to survive in an increasingly fragile planet.

As many people know-or at least suspect-the FDA does not do much to protect us from hidden dangers in our food supply. It exists to protect large businesses, large-scale farmers, and corporations that produce various chemicals and pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plays a similar role, as recent reports document.

When Sinclair wrote the above description, most cows, pigs, and chickens were raised on pastures. Consequently, most animals arrived at the meat packers in a healthy state. That is definitely not the case today.

In the last 15 years the U.S. meat system has changed dramatically. We went from a time when most, if not all, meat animals were still raised on pasture, to the industrialization of our meat supply.

During this same time period, the directors of our federal agencies -- the USDA, FDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- advocated new practices: meat and dairy animals were confined; farms became factories. This gave rise to ever larger operations that required less space. The theory: animals don't lose energy (and weight) foraging for food on pastures so they can be ready for market earlier. Farmers would save money on feed. Everyone wins.

Or do they? In order to confine millions of animals in close quarters it was necessary to use antibiotics to prevent disease outbreaks and epidemics. As a result the federal government, many state governments, and universities became cheerleaders for intensive confinement, animal management-and actively promoted the use of chemicals to support its success.

By 2006 there were 97,000 feedlots that produced 78 percent of all the beef slaughtered in the United States. This represented about 28 million head of beef cows.

In spite of the anemic nature of most of our animal regulations, it is still against the law to slaughter for human consumption any animals that cannot stand and walk. But, as the Humane Society documented, the law is meaningless. They exposed USDA inspectors at a feedlot where animals that were too sick to stand were shoved onto the slaughter line with the front-end loaders of tractors.

200 million pounds of beef recalled in just the last twelve months should tell you something about the state of meat production. It is terribly flawed. In 2007, more than 60 million pounds of tainted beef were recalled. In 2008, 143 million pounds of beef have already been recalled.

The haunting question is how many more horrific meat tales are out there without a Humane Society whistle blower or an Upton Sinclair to document it?

Chew on these seemingly disparate facts, which show the results of our growing industrialized, chemical-soaked food supply:

In 1994, 73 percent of U.S. pigs were raised in pastures and pens on small farms. By 2007, 95 percent were raised in large confinement hog operations-that's 57 million heavily medicated pigs.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: war on bugs, pesticide

Will Allen is an organic farmer in Vermont, and author of The War on Bugs (Chelsea Green, 2008). He is currently a co-chair of Farms Not Arms, is a policy advisory board member of the Organic Consumers Association, and serves on the board of Rural Vermont.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yeah...it's tough to leave a safe bet.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 3, 2008 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
300,000,000 mouths to feed at a reasonable price (thanks to taxpayer subsidies)?

You bet efficiency takes over, potentially to the detriment in the long term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You wrote
Posted by: bitsfick on May 3, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In order to confine millions of animals in close quarters it was necessary to use antibiotics to prevent disease outbreaks and epidemics. With 6.5 billion and growing, how long before the human race shares the same problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You wrote Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: You wrote Posted by: esornew
Food Control/Monopoly by Genetic Engineering
Posted by: brightlight on May 3, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are not careful, apart from the effects on our health of GE crops, we will reach a stage where they will monopolise all seeds and will control the price and supply of seeds and will be able to starve us when we don't do as they want us to do, if they don't kill us before that by the modifications to crops!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Return Agriculture Back to the Family Farmers!
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 3, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Experiment has finally Yielded Results - Industrialization is Detrimental and counterindicted to Humanity and the environment.The evidence is undeniable and has been proven deadly, esp when it comes to the Food supply.
Teh family farmer had to produce a high quality product - otherwise they would lose their customers. Had to adhere to sanitary and good animal husbandry practices to assure the end product. Plus - Have NO Doubt that people who chose to make their career with Livestock do not love their animals. They would not be doing such a labor intense, modest income Profession if they did Not enjoy the animals. but Mass Production eleviates such requirments- no need to admire the beast that feeds the people, so it is easier to neglect and abuse them. A disgrace and Out rage to anyone who truely Honors the animals who have bee ngiven to mankind as a Gift- by god or nature, to sustain US while we work to be the Stewards of this Planet (Our meaning/ mission in life). PETA is a heretical society- they deny the very nature of our species (would you feed a Lion a salad? Are you sure the carrot does not scream while you skin it?Science shows it may !). I understand peoples personal choice not to eat meat- but we are omnivores by design- eyes forward, canines, No cecum or additonal'stomachs' to maintain microbals whos death provides Protein to herbivores).
But even more disturbing about industrialization is that We as a species have placed ourselves in the overpopulated confines of it's centralized Organizational system. Urban areas are nothing more then overstocked livestock pens. Look at the physical, psychological and mental tolls of such consolidation of the 'labor market'. Free Range Living is the healthiest for ALL Species

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eturn Agriculture Back to the Family Farmers! Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Some proposals for healthy farms
Posted by: honeyman on May 3, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Factory farming has been a disaster in varying degrees to the environment, rural society, the health and well being of livestock,and the purity of plant derived foods.

Having written extensively on the link between the death of honeybees, insecticides, and GM crops I have delved more deeply into the state of agriculture than most.

There is good reason to believe that not only honeybees, but many insect species, birds and amphibians are in a state of collapse from the toxic nature of the rural world.

Rural culture is now dominated by bankers, machinery companies and chemical corporations leaving little room for meaningful employment for young people. Embracing diversified crop and food production would provide a healthy stimulus to regions which now are virtual biological and social deserts. The practice of crop rotations and on farm stock rearing and finishing would negate the need for large fertilizer and insecticide inputs, thus saving energy. Rural youth would have the chance to stay on the family farm and do what they know best.

The first step will require breaking the link between corporations who support agriculture empires in all universities and who dictate the direction of research. The result being that critics who question the final impact of farm practices on the environment and health of our nation are dismissed and marginalized. In other words, there is a huge elephant that no one will acknowledge.

Earl Butz famously said,"Get big or get out." the new slogan should be,"Get small, diversify and stay in". John McDonald

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Goody, We Can All Roast With Our Animals
Posted by: terryhallinan on May 3, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as Global Warming exterminates life on the planet and allows Mother Nature to try again to evolve an intelligent life form on her planet. She has obviously failed this go-round.

My doctor surprised me when he told me his small village in India got all its electricity from an anaerobic digester as he was growing up. It shouldn't have been surprising.

Anaerobic digestion has been around for centuries. The first digesters were rectangular boxes buried in the ground to improve fertilizers. The methane extracted was a curiosity rather than a desired end product.

Modern methods may not only capture methane but retrieve nutrients and fiber and even separate out minerals and hydrogen and all without polluting the air, land and water.

True the pigs and cows may not get to frolic in green meadows and humans will still have to heat there homes with the methane but life is often hard.

Best, Terry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
Posted by: AJWeishar on May 3, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Jungle came to me in high school back in the 60's. That story and The Human Zoo have come back as reality in the poisonous chemicals, corn syrup, and genetic alteration of what we consume. The human zoo is the aberrant social behavior caused by too many people or animals living in a small area. We consume meat from animals raised in an extremely unnatural environment. How does that affect us? Obviously, the fat and lack of muscle tone in the meat has been passed on to us and our children. What does a lifetime of stress and trauma do to our meat?
Disclaimer: not a vegan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Criticism
Posted by: forester on May 3, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am writing this criticism as a liberal vegetarian and as a regular Alternet reader. I too am opposed to corporate farming. It is clearly unsustainable, and myriad chemical applications do pose major human health risks. But because, as you acknowledge, there is a climate of fear surrounding our food supply, I think you owe it to readers to do more than play on our fears, but to make credible arguments that present useful details about what is happening to our food and how it affects our health. This article, as do so many other science/environment articles on Alternet, reeks of “truthiness”.

My first issue with your article is that it is a purely emotional argument. There are no specific citations, no links, no data, and no meaningful explanation of the few statistics you use. Furthermore, you rely strongly on correlative studies. Here is a famous correlation: Murder rates increase in the summer and so do ice cream sales. Thus ice cream consumption and murders are related. You have to elaborate on correlative studies for them to make any sense. I am familiar with several of the studies you cite, and as you are probably aware, things are not as cut and dry as you make them sound.

I am not sure your information about DDT/2,4-D is correct. Please provide some sort of evidence if I am wrong, but I think we have successfully solved many herbicide-human health issues, in large part thanks to Rachel Carson. My fear is that you are trying to resurrect "Silent Spring" when herbicide applications are much more environmentally friendly today than they were back then. You do not acknowledge the vast improvements that are successfully protecting our environment and our health, but instead pander to our fears in a very misleading way.

You also omit the fact that many organic food products are known vectors of natural carcinogens (organic celery and peanuts, for example). Are these organic products better for you? Perhaps they are, but my problem here is that you simply look the other way when it is convenient to your argument.

Antibiotics & pesticides correlate with cancer & neurological disorders. Which? Both? How? I am a 30 year old cancer survivor and I am very interested in details about these links.

You say study links pesticides to Parkinson’s disease. My grandfather died of Parkinson’s and it is a horrific disease. Again no details. Thus, I can only suspect the link is not as solid as you imply. You just keep throwing stuff out there assuming that science itself is beyond critique.

Are you saying that antibiotic use in livestock is leading to a buildup in antibiotic-resistant organisms that are transmissable to humans? In what specific ways does eating "antibiotic-soaked" meat products impact human health? You have drawn no clear conclusions here, just throwing out random "facts" at random places throughout this article, leaving me feeling that there is no sense of focus. It is a confusing read with poor organization/structure, and this enables your piece to easily be misinterpreted.

Also, you cite the "Humane Society" but you do not say which Humane Society. One in a credible organization (Animal Humane Society), the other is a parasitic propaganda machine (Humane Society of the United States), as their co-opting the name of a legitimate organization to trick people into donating to the wrong organization may imply. You really need to make this distinction, because if you are citing HSUS “studies”, then this article is utterly devoid of any credibility.

As for the destruction of rural America, it is largely due to development, urban & exurban sprawl, taxing rural landowners (in some states) at "highest & best use" rates instead of actual use, driving families off of their farms and forests. Development is the #1 threat to the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Criticism Posted by: honeyman
» RE: Criticism Posted by: Paxmana1
honeyman
Posted by: honeyman on May 3, 2008 11:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One final note...Wendell Berry wrote years ago that we live in a society which has no present...we are constantly drawn into a future that never comes with advertising which proclaim,"your car of the future", "your kitchen of the future", "your job of the future". The result is that we have acquired expectations that will never be met.

In the Pacific islands there is a form of religion called cargo cults which apparently arose when ships during World War 2 dumped all sorts of goods from the developed world and then ,in a few days, disappeared. The inhabitants would build models of planes and ships on the shores hoping to call down more goods. Alas! Are our lives any different? Not to worry, the goodies are coming...some one must be working on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Criticism
Posted by: luanetodd on May 3, 2008 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sir, I think you have misidentified your mental mindset. Liberals are open to new knowledge, are willing to do their own homework. Your post suggested an unwillingness to wrap your mind around anything unfamiliar no matter what the author of such new thing said. If you followup on the information the author presented I think you will find ample evidence to support his points.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Need to Inform Ourselves and Our Neighbors
Posted by: macdon1 on May 3, 2008 2:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched this documentary and it blew me away. Monsanto has used its power to suppress it in this country. Watch it folks and share.
http://100777.com/node/1805

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Until the human population comes down, industrial agriculture is here to stay
Posted by: Democratic Socialist on May 3, 2008 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is that we now MUST have industrial agriculture if the 6.6 billions humans on the planet are all going to be fed. There isn't enough arable land to grow enough food for all of the world's people without the heavy use of dangerous pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

Due to terrible land management over time the massive erosion of topsoil continues to deplete the amount of arable land each year all over the world; thus we have millions of acres of the Brazilian rainforest being cut down each year for more money crops or grazing land (for a short term profit!) after the millions of acres cut down a few years before cease to be productive due to erosion.

It's a terrible fact, but it's true -- until the human population is at least cut in half from its current levels, industrial agriculture is here to stay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Unadulterated bullshit. Posted by: heid
» RE: Unadulterated bullshit. Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Unadulterated bullshit. Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Family Farming Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Family Farming Posted by: Last Chance
Small farming not financially viable? Try again
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on May 4, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The small mixed farm is the only sustainable model of farming known. And yet it is not viable financially

I would like to debate that point.Certainly there are a lot of farms that are not financially viable.But to say that small farming is not viable is not true. It just is not true. Diverse farming options are viable by their merit. If you produce a high quality product, sell it for the right price to the right people you can be viable. I run a small vegetable farm.I have a medium sized CSA, sell to restaurants and at a farmers market. Granted sometimes the weather makes things difficult. BUT If you plan wisely and do not overextend yourself in any one area it is totally doable. Attitude is paramount here. If you think it is not viable then it is not.I have been doing this for ten years and business has never been so good.. and the season is just beginning. It is not something that one can expect to be financially wealthy at, but it certainly is far from impossible. For the most part as a small farmer I can say truly that my needs are met, I live an unbelievable existence and I eat very well.Life is what you make it. You have a choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Small farming not financially viable? Try again Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
This article just fades away into oblivion
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on May 4, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because you basically focus on animal cruelty ... I mean Jesus! There's reports all over the place of humans rioting for food all over the world precisely because of our current market practices and this article completely ignores that! Don't get me wrong, of course cruelty to animals and the topic of food production should be included in this article, but the topic of food's price inflation and its impacts on socio-economics is much more evident at the moment. The author of this article missed a huge opportunity to advance all the issues that he talks about ... he should've at least minimally plugged into what is currently a hot issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re:Re:Criticism
Posted by: forester on May 4, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am open to new information, but I much more open to quality information. The nature of this debate in these posts is a battle of ideas without supportive evidence. I think it is beneficial to get concerned people engaged, as we are now. But I've yet to see anyone actually prove anything here. Which is problematic because if you want to change not only hearts & minds but what is happening on the ground, then you have to be able to point to real evidence and suggest viable alternatives.
Again, anything produced by HSUS is not legitimate, and the author still has not clarified if that is one of his primary sources.
Furthermore, I have studied these issues and I am professionaly engaged in ecosystem management. As a manger, I am much more familiar with herbicides because I use them in my work. I read the scientific literature as well as policy lit and activist writings like this one. I was hoping for a little more substance on pesticides, etc. and was disappointed to see some possible misinformation about herbicides pop up.
My plea to Alternet, is to step up the standard of what gets published on this site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: e:Re:Criticism Posted by: Paxmana1
Thinking defeats impulse
Posted by: Last Chance on May 4, 2008 12:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Industrialized agriculture is inflicting a biological disaster on the Earth and its people, but the root cause is the exploding human population that overwhelms any solution that ignores it. So, if there is still time, we must 1. peacefully reduce our all too human population through family planning clinics Worldwide, and 2. return to family farming. That way there will be no need for agribusiness corporations because a smaller number of people who take control over their own lives will be feeding themselves from their own land. Farm for family and community and to hell with the Market.
If Saving the Earth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bfreewithrp
Posted by: luciennh on May 4, 2008 3:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will no longer eat pork after reading the ways they are grown with all sorts of drugs. There is virtually no nutrition left to feed the human body. The toxicity levels of meats on the market are beyond our liver's ability to screen. They no longer have value. Consumers have been porked long enough. The present agencies guiding agriculture, meat processing, general food processing must be changed and I don't have to hint what will happen if this is not corrected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bfreewithrp
Posted by: luciennh on May 4, 2008 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm afraid this is not totally true. We are producing useless Ethanol to run our autos, instead of producing "food". Many programs could be promoted that would give us and the world the ability to be easily fed. The problem...a vision for profit is all we know. Commerce requires "profit". Do we think the industrial world will give this up? GM is causing global devastation. Oh GM producer profit is up, farmer profit is down and what they do grow with GM we are told is toxic. Governments must change, but then most receive financial incentives to feed industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

W.W.O.O.F. for landless folks
Posted by: macdon1 on May 4, 2008 5:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am all for getting my own land and being self sufficient but don't have the finances at this point. Here is one alternative for all ages:
http://www.wwoof.org/ You can join this organization for a nominal fee and travel around working on organic farms and related organizations all over the world. Compensation varies but room and board is always provided with lots of great organic food. There are wwoofers everywhere even in urban areas. This is a great way to stay out of the evil corporate marketplace!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go Off-grid with Food
Posted by: herbal on May 7, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Centralized food production has an alternative just as nuclear and coal power do. Factory foods can be avoided by building local food production and taking a lesson from those of us who have paved the way with certified organic production.

Alternative food is the first and most fundamental and successful building block of alternative social change. You can do it by starting block gardens, food buying clubs, planting edible landscape and saving open pollinated seed. Do it on vacant lots like Cuba's urban gardens, on roof tops and in abandoned fields that can be leased cheaply. Tell the centalized food distributors and chain supermarkets to.....well, you don't have to tell them anything. Just get independent. First food, then medicine, clothing, burial, education, shoes, transportation. Deprive Monsanto of its market by unplugging from the system upon which it feeds. Grow your own. Keep its filthy hands out of your pocket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]