COMMENTS: 44
Why We Need to Rise up Against Industrial Agriculture (Again)
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
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.
By 2001 there were 300 million commercial laying hens and 8.2 billion broiler chickens in the United States. It requires a lot of drugs to keep this many chickens alive. Half of 16 poultry workers recently examined in Maryland and Virginia were carrying antibiotic resistant e-coli bacteria, which suggests the chicks receiving the drugs pose a disease threat.
A recent study concluded that exposure to pesticides for more than 215 days in a lifetime doubles the chances of contracting Parkinson's Disease.
Today's use of antibiotics and pesticides are posing an ever-increasing danger to humans. They correlate with growing rates of cancer and neurological conditions. It's a very real problem.
The story of chemicals and pharmaceuticals is an old one. My book The War on Bugs outlines how several powerful entities actively cooperated to promote farm chemicals for more than 160 years. The corporations that pushed these "goods," along with their government accomplices, are responsible for the destruction of rural America.
Chemical corporations continue their propaganda efforts to convince farmers that they cannot make a profit without using chemicals, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically-manipulated crops and animals. These promoters have convinced U.S. farmers that they are the "bread basket for the world," and if they don't use chemicals to get the highest yields, then millions around the world will starve-and they will lose their farms. The pro-corporate arguments and claims are nonstop: antibiotics are safe used in small doses on confined animals and promote good health in crowded conditions. What about growing a sustainable amount of food on available pasture? It's not part of the conversation.
Antibiotic failures, antibiotic resistance, and other problems are inevitable. Recent studies have shown methicillin resistant staphloccus aureus (MRSA) in both pigs and pig farmers. In Canada in 2008, 45 percent of the hog farms had MRSA colonization, while prevalence among the pigs was 24.9 percent. The prevalence of MRSA colonization among pig farmers was 20 percent, nearly as much as the pigs receiving the antibiotics. By 1998 researchers found antibiotic resistant bacteria from hog operations in human drinking water systems. A University of Illinois study, in August 2001, confirmed bacteria resistant to the antibiotic tetracycline were escaping from large hog operations into local groundwater. The most recent study, published in July 2007 found that bacteria resistant to the antibiotics erythromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin occurred in high levels in surface and ground water down gradient from a large hog operation.
But the danger of what is seeping from our food supply into our environment doesn't stop with antibiotics. The impact of pesticide use on the health of farmers, gardeners, consumers, and their children is also emerging in scientific studies with some alarming results.
For example, three separate tests released in 2005, 2006, and 2008 found that urine and saliva samples of children eating a variety of chemically grown food from supermarkets and grocery stores contained organophosphates, which are neurotoxins associated with pesticides.
These same researchers found that when the children began eating organic food the organophosphates disappeared from their urine and saliva almost immediately. When they began eating chemical food again the organophosphates showed up in their urine and saliva.
Separate researchers found that hog farmers exposed to herbicides and pesticides are contracting non-Hodgkins lymphoma at much higher rates than the general population.
The connection between pesticide exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma emerged in the late 1980s, but has come back into the news with the discovery that children whose parents work around pesticides or who use lawn and garden care pesticides at home have been contracting lymphomas at much higher rates than children whose parents are not exposed to these poisons.
This isn't a secret. Our local paper has printed this information, and maybe you've seen it in your local paper. String the stories together and you get the big picture.
Every week brings new reports of pesticide, antibiotic, genetic engineering, and other farm chemical horror stories. Of course, similar stories have appeared ever since farmers started using arsenic in the 1860s and arsenic and lead in the1890s. Thousands continue to be poisoned with arsenic, lead, cyanide, fluorine, methyl bromide, DDT, 2,4-D, malathion, parathion and all the other farm poisons. When will it stop? Since government regulators refuse to stop the poisonous assault on our food supply we have to conclude that it will only stop when we stop it.
It's important to remember that today's flourishing organic food movement came into being without government or university backing and support. In fact, those powerful interests have done nothing but tried to quash the movement at every turn of the plow.
The factory farm promoters posing as hunger advocates argue that organic food is too costly for poor people to afford. Bunk! Poisoned food costs less at the supermarket but is subsidized, so the second payment comes at tax time, or when sick and diseased workers and their children land in the hospital.
Safe food advocates argue that poisoned food can't be cheap enough. How much should poor people pay for antibiotic-soaked pork, chicken and beef? How much should they pay for produce with neurotoxins? At our farmers markets we take in thousands of dollars in federal food stamp and food coupon sales for organic produce every year. If poor people are given a clear choice between organic and poison foods, we have found that most choose organic.
Today, organic food and products are the fastest growing sector of agriculture. The organic food market has grown by 20%per year since 1990. In the last ten years, organic milk sales are up by an average of 50% per year. That growth is directly related to reports of deaths,illness, cancer, birth defects, the fear of poisoned food, and farmers willing to take the risk of going organic.
Because of these fears, deaths, illnesses, and entrepreneurial gambles we are in the midst of another farm revitalization movement in the United States, but this time it is part of a global movement toward sustainable farming.
In the current movement, the focus is on local agriculture and is guided by the following mantras:
- Buy your food as locally as you can
- Don't trade unless you can't produce it.
- Support your local farmers and merchants.
- Buy or grow organically grown food
- Eat food that doesn't rob your mind or bloat your body
- Preserve traditional cultures and their foods
As never before we need to heed the advice of Rachel Carson and eliminate the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers to grow our food. The first step is to not buy food that is grown with poisons. When Carson wrote her book, there was not a highly developed organic farming community like we have today. In Carson's day, if you didn't have an organic garden in your backyard, you were stuck with eating poisoned food.
Today's movement encourages consumers to develop and participate in sustainable communities and to support sustainable farms. This is a worldwide movement that rejects miracle rice, high fructose corn syrup, junk food, toxic chemicals, genetic manipulation, irradiated food, food from factory farms, and the McDonald's fast-food culture.
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 3, 2008 12:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Ack, this was a shocker to see someone spout:
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bitsfick on May 3, 2008 3:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brightlight on May 3, 2008 4:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Food Control/Monopoly by Genetic Engineering
Posted by: TERRIROBSON
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 3, 2008 5:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: eturn Agriculture Back to the Family Farmers!
Posted by: ciccio
» RE: eturn Agriculture Back to the Family Farmers!
Posted by: Last Chance
Comments are closed-
Posted by: honeyman on May 3, 2008 6:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Some proposals for healthy farms
Posted by: margo1
» RE: Some proposals for healthy farms
Posted by: eboy
» RE: Some proposals for healthy farms
Posted by: frqctrl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terryhallinan on May 3, 2008 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AJWeishar on May 3, 2008 9:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Disclaimer: not a vegan.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: forester on May 3, 2008 10:39 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: honeyman on May 3, 2008 11:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luanetodd on May 3, 2008 2:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on May 3, 2008 2:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://100777.com/node/1805
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: We Need to Inform Ourselves and Our Neighbors
Posted by: jlan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Democratic Socialist on May 3, 2008 3:02 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: eboy
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on May 4, 2008 6:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Small farming not financially viable? Try again
Posted by: richholland
» Farm for family and community and to hell with agribusiness!
Posted by: Last Chance
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on May 4, 2008 10:39 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: forester on May 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on May 4, 2008 12:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Saving the Earth
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luciennh on May 4, 2008 3:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luciennh on May 4, 2008 3:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on May 4, 2008 5:16 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: W.W.O.O.F. for landless folks
Posted by: yale
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on May 7, 2008 7:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 3, 2008 12:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Ack, this was a shocker to see someone spout:
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bitsfick on May 3, 2008 3:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brightlight on May 3, 2008 4:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Food Control/Monopoly by Genetic Engineering
Posted by: TERRIROBSON
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 3, 2008 5:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: eturn Agriculture Back to the Family Farmers!
Posted by: ciccio
» RE: eturn Agriculture Back to the Family Farmers!
Posted by: Last Chance
Comments are closed-
Posted by: honeyman on May 3, 2008 6:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Some proposals for healthy farms
Posted by: margo1
» RE: Some proposals for healthy farms
Posted by: eboy
» RE: Some proposals for healthy farms
Posted by: frqctrl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terryhallinan on May 3, 2008 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AJWeishar on May 3, 2008 9:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Disclaimer: not a vegan.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: forester on May 3, 2008 10:39 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: honeyman on May 3, 2008 11:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luanetodd on May 3, 2008 2:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on May 3, 2008 2:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://100777.com/node/1805
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: We Need to Inform Ourselves and Our Neighbors
Posted by: jlan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Democratic Socialist on May 3, 2008 3:02 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: eboy
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on May 4, 2008 6:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Small farming not financially viable? Try again
Posted by: richholland
» Farm for family and community and to hell with agribusiness!
Posted by: Last Chance
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on May 4, 2008 10:39 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: forester on May 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on May 4, 2008 12:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Saving the Earth
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luciennh on May 4, 2008 3:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luciennh on May 4, 2008 3:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on May 4, 2008 5:16 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: W.W.O.O.F. for landless folks
Posted by: yale
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on May 7, 2008 7:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat




