User:HELI/sandbox

Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations / Environmental impacts of animal husbandry within the United States / Modern animal agriculture policy  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (April 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations / Environmental impacts of animal husbandry within the United States / Modern Animal Agriculture Policy holistically refers to the political structure of animal product production, with special reference to changes that have occurred within the United States since 2016 and their impact on the environment, consumers, workers, residents, communities, and populations. Modern animal agriculture policy implies the use of intensive farming methods which are especially relevant today in the midst of broader topics and crises such as public health and anthropogenic climate change. The topic explores regulations and power structures promoting certain methods of farming and pollution that result in policy and environmental justice issues. In practice, these structures include industrial concentrated animal feeding operations, factory farms, animal feeding operations, feedlots, and grazeland. Key points include United States controversies under the Trump administration, policy, labeling, environmental justice, public health, environmental degradation, and controversies.

A concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) is a large-scale modern approach to meat, dairy, and egg farming. CAFOs are a specific type of animal feeding operation (AFO) characterized by the amount and species of animals that they house. CAFOs are known for being highly productive and inexpensive due to using less land by keeping animals confined, and implementing new technology in animal breeding, feed, and pharmaceuticals which allow animals to grow larger in a shorter time period. 

Policy

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its 100,000 employees create and carry out federal-level laws regarding agriculture, food production and consumption, natural resources, nutrition, and rural land.

On February 3, 2017, the USDA revoked general public access to tens of thousands of documents containing animal welfare information by an order from President Donald Trump. The contents of these documents range from reports of how well facilities are adhering to the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, the amount of animals being used in various labs, companies, and businesses, and what experimental procedures are being conducted on them. Now, in order to gain access to these documents, a Freedom of Information Act request is required, providing a barrier to obtaining information. The USDA has stated that their reason for their decision is due to their “commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs, and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals.”

United States legislation

The Farm Bill

The first United States "Farm Bill" was introduced in 1933 in order to combat the plummeting price of crops during the Great Depression. This launched a program to raise the price of agricultural goods by paying farmers to produce less, and in 1938, Congress established that the Farm Bill would be renewed every five years. In 1996, Congress voted to substantially change the bill by phasing out government subsidies to farmers. However, this policy reversed when the price of crops fell the following year, and a modified version of government subsidies was reintroduced to agriculture. The government offered direct payments to farmers based upon their amount of land rather than encouraging scarcity by paying them to grow less. The budget allocated to the Farm Bill has grown increasingly over the years, mostly due to an increase in the need for food stamps, and remains a contentious political topic today.

Recently, the Republican Party’s platform on agriculture and food policy from the 2016 campaign included a statement that stated, "thanks in large part to a lack of leadership from the current Administration and congressional Democrats, the last Farm Bill took far too long to enact, creating instability about farm policy for nearly two years. Republicans are dedicated to leading this country forward, which includes getting things done on time, including the next Farm Bill.” However, the enactment and creation of a new Farm Bill has yet to be seen.

Every year, Washington D.C. has an appropriations cycle, which is the official process for funding federal programs. During this process, many legislation decisions are made, as it is a period of change in our government. In the most recent cycle, several changes are being debated within the current Farm Bill such as creating a new multi-billion dollar Farm Bill baseline for the cotton industry, which would allow cottonseed oil to be treated as a Farm Bill commodity subsidy program, modifying the dairy Margin Protection Program to increase the likelihood of program payouts, restricting the USDA in terms of protecting the contract livestock farmers from abusive contracting practices, delaying rewriting nutrition labels, weakening nutrition standards for public school lunches, and exempting CAFOs from chemical release disclosure laws.

The Agricultural Gag Law

The Agricultural Gag Law, otherwise known as the Ag Gag Law, is United States legislation defined as “intending to prevent undercover filming of farms without their owner’s consent.” On August 27, 2016, Trump spoke out about agricultural policy at a campaign event in Iowa, stating that “family farms are the backbone of this country. We are going to end the EPA intrusion into your family homes and your family farms. We are going to protect the Renewable Fuel Standard, eliminate job-killing regulations like the Waters of the U.S. rule, and provide desperately-needed tax relief… We are going to end this war on the American farmer. That includes our plan to lower the tax rate on family farms down to 15 percent, and to stop the double-taxation of family farms at death – helping to ensure that the family farm tradition in Iowa continues to thrive and flourish.” The Trump Administration then put a gag order on the U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers immediately following President Trump's inauguration. This order forbade the public from sharing information and scientific papers produced by the Department of Agriculture. A tendency for Ag Gag laws and criminalizing recording of farms is that facilities that are mistreating animals will be allowed to get away with mistreating animals while the general public doesn't realize this is happening. As for those who are directly involved, in animal activism and liberation, Ag Gag laws often alter the discourse and perception of their efforts. The laws also discourage American citizens from becoming involved or aligning with these groups.

Food disparagement laws

Food disparagement laws “assume that statements critical of an industry are untrue unless there is definitive science to support the critique, or eliminate the means of maliciousness as to the falsity of a statement.” Currently, thirteen U.S. states have implemented some form of food libel/disparagement laws. These states are: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.

Food disparagement laws were first introduced in 1989, after Washington State apple growers sued when a "60 Minutes" segment suggested that alar, a chemical used in apple production, could be carcinogenic, with children at especially high risk. Under the law at that time, only people could face disparagement, so the case was dismissed. In response, the American Feed Industry Association introduced a bill which would defend against the defamation of food and agricultural products.

A noteworthy instance in food disparagement law took place in 1996, when Oprah Winfrey discussed Mad Cow Disease on her show.

Ecoterrorism

Direct action activism for animal rights, often characterized by illegal activity, gained traction throughout the 1980s. The first recorded animal liberation was committed in 1977 by Kenneth LeVasseur, who released two dolphins into the wild from a facility in which they were kept. He was charged with theft. Similarly, throughout the 1980’s and ‘90’s, those who participated in direct action activism often faced probation, jail time, or paid restitution to the facilities from which the animals were taken. Throughout the 1990’s, Rod Coronado led several liberation efforts, specifically, releasing minks and coyotes from university testing facilities. Coronado did not face prosecution until a laboratory at Michigan State University was burned down in 1992, for which he was charged with arson and faced 57 months in prison.

As activism of this sort became increasingly frequent, prevention became necessary in the form of legislative action. In 1992, Congress passed legislation dictating that releasing animals from animal enterprise facilities was classified as an act of terrorism. This bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, is called the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. This law states that anyone who “intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or conspires to do so shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” Animal enterprise is defined as, “a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing; a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences.” Crimes of this sort have come to be defined as “ecoterrorism” or “ecotage,” defined by the FBI as “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”

Animal-welfare labeling

Animal-welfare labeling notifies consumers that the animals used in the making of a particular product, such as eggs, dairy, and meat, were treated with some degree of consideration. It influences purchasing decisions and the huge volume of labels produced gives consumers the idea that animal agriculture and CAFOS are operating under healthy, clean, and humane conditions. However, there are no agreed-upon operational definitions for broad terms like “free-range”, “fairly-treated”, and “humane practices” featured on food products. In addition, there are multiple organizations that create these animal-welfare labels and they all vary in regards to what they monitor and how strict they are. Some of the more popular labeling organizations are the American Humane Association, A Greener World, and the Humane Farm Animal Care, which are all nonprofit groups that charge fees for companies to use their labels. However, these groups differ in their requirements in almost every category such as access to pasture, minimum indoor area, and ammonia and darkness levels in cages. This makes it easy for corporations to choose the standards that are less rigorous and aren’t as strict in certain areas. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture does not currently have inspections of the farms and factories in order to test these claims, so the meaning behind these labels has been contested. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of animal products made in the United States originate from CAFOs and factory farms, so the abundance of animal-welfare labels featured in grocery stores have been questioned. Some of the most popular labels associated with various groups are defined by publicly accessible standards related to animal welfare and include:

• Animal Welfare Approved (USDA)
• American Humane Certified (American Humane Association)
• Global Animal Partnership
• Food Alliance Certified
• Certified Human (Humane Farm Animal Care)
• Certified Organic (USDA and National Organic Program)
• American Grassfed Certified (American Grassfed Association)

Many companies use various terms in order to appeal to animal rights-concerned consumers, but these terms are actually meaningless in regards to animal welfare and do not have organizations or certifications behind them. These terms include:

• Cage free
• Halal
• Kosher
• Natural
• No Added Hormones
• Vegetarian Fed
• Naturally Raised
• USDA Process Verified
• Pasture Raised
• Free Roaming

Environmental Degradation

Likewise, agricultural, environmental, labor, humanitarian, and public health advocates expect that the Trump administration's promotion of resource-intensive, large-scale factory-farming methods, oil, and coal will degrade natural resources and environmental safety. A few impacts are briefly illustrated below.

Climate change

The animal agriculture sector, and particularly CAFOs, forms one of the biggest industries exuding greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Environmentalists, scientists, and farmers fear that protection and expansion of animal feeding operations will endanger the future of agriculture by proliferating the effects of global climate change. Global warming is currently increasing climate shifts that are resulting in exacerbated water scarcity, desertification, and a loss of arable farmland. And as global warming increases, these conditions will only worsen. This is known as a positive feedback loop because it significantly accelerates the rate of change. Currently in the animal agriculture sector, fertilizers, high powered farm machinery, animal flatulence, and animal respiration all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. CAFOs are responsible for 18% of carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of global methane emissions, and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions— forming a grand total of 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, and discounting carbon stores that are removed for the purpose of animal agriculture, such as forests. Once greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide are released from storage, they trap heat, contributing to the melting of the arctic and the continued warming of the planet.

Animal product production is the primary contributor to emissions of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases responsible for climate change and air pollution. Methane traps heat at a rate 2-3.5 times more concentrated that carbon dioxide. In 2014, methane concentrations rose 12.5 parts per billion, and in 2015, 9.9 parts per billion, surpassing the annual rise of about 0.5 parts per billion a decade ago.

Water pollution and contamination

Most animal agriculture establishments are registered as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and are therefore exempt from treating the waste they produce and have no incentive to treat or dispose of waste properly. Bound by no legal obligation to process or purify blood, urine, feces, or decomposing bodies, CAFOs often store waste in ponds or lagoons. CAFO operators are supposed to take measures to prevent waste from getting into waterways. However, officials often neglect to monitor the employment of preventative tactics or to penalize operators for runoff. Rain, hurricanes, and snowmelt often cause poorly enforced lagoon walls to breach or flood, facilitating the transportation of waste to lakes, streams, and rivers.

In 2016, Hurricane Mathew hit North Carolina, and the heavy torrents of water flooded many of the animal waste storage facilities, causing at least 15 waste lagoons to breach. State and federal authorities did not penalize the CAFO operators responsible for ensuring no runoff would reach waterways.  The waste from these breached agricultural lagoons transported pathogens to humans in neighboring North Carolina communities according to epidemiologists. These pathogens include viruses, bacteria, and microorganisms carrying diseases such as swine influenza that are then free to travel via air or be transported via contact with products that are headed to stores, ending up in environments where they can make human communities sick.

Donald Trump’s reversal of the Stream Protection Rule is criticized for lifting water pollution regulations from small moving bodies of water. Various agricultural, environmental, public health groups condemn the reversal as it creates potential for health contamination of workers, consumers, and produce, as well as de facto environmental degradation.

Air pollution

Existing animal agriculture policy is also controversial due to its effects on air pollution. The Socially Responsible Agricultural Project calculates that “liquefied animal waste” from animal agriculture produces 160 noxious gasses.

The Excel Dairy Company of Minnesota formerly discharged hydrogen sulfide — a gas known for its rotten egg odor and its toxic effects to the nervous system damage — into the surrounding community. In 2009, this pollution increased to such a degree that officials feared that the local community would suffer from significant respiratory and nervous system damage if the company immediately did not take steps to halt gas emissions. The company ignored all official warnings. As a result, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was forced to shut down the operation, while urgently recommending that neighboring residents immediately evacuate the area.

Currently, animal agriculture practices produce levels of particulate matter exceeding scientifically quantified safe standards. Concentrated animal feeding operation staples such as feed, bedding materials, animal dander, feathers, and manure all become airborne with light winds. Local citizens then breathe in these pollutants, triggering problems such as bronchitis, deteriorated lung function, and organic dust toxic syndrome.

On April 11, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found a ruling that exempted CAFOs from disclosing toxics releases to be illegal. The prosecution acted on behalf of the Waterkeeper Alliance, Center for Food Safety (CFS), the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project, acting against the National Pork Producers Council. CAFOs legally now must disclose toxics releases including hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, methane, and other compounds known to acutely impact human health.

A 2009 study on CAFOs and health complications in the Netherlands found that citizens in regions with high concentrations of CAFOs tended to have a roughly 200% higher rate of infectious disease acquisition due to particulates in the air. These results were especially high in children between the ages of zero and four. Additionally, CAFOs in states like Mississippi and North Carolina are also focal points of environmental racism, as CAFOs tend to be five times more populated by people of color than by white residents. Air pollution associated with CAFOs, and therefore these minority groups, is shown to lead to higher levels of stress, teen pregnancies, and mental health problems.

Public Health

Animal agriculture producers employ hormones and antibiotics in their operations to encourage quicker growth and ward off terminal disease in farm animals. However, nutritionists, toxicologists, and epidemiologists report that hormone and antibiotic poses risks to public health.

Chemical and hormone use

Chemicals and synthetic hormones are commonly used in modern animal agriculture. The usage and production of these chemicals is difficult to monitor, regulate, and determine safe dose levels for because the effects vary based on exposure levels, the length of time exposed, and potential synergistic effects of using multiple chemicals at the same time. Chemical and hormone use is also a topic of environmental justice because the people exposed to large amounts of potential toxins are those working in CAFOs in close proximity to farm animals and are disproportionately poor people of color. They are exposed to synthetic hormones and endocrine disruptors every day by touching, breathing, and accidentally ingesting small amounts through contaminated water, air, soil, food, and animals.

Hormones

Further concern over the use of hormones in animal agriculture centers around the hormones getting into the environment and ingested by people. Operators use hormones to make animals produce more eggs, more milk, and grow faster and larger without overfeeding them. Hormones enter the animals in their feed or by injection, and exit in excrement and blood to infect bodies of water. Humans consume hormones directly in egg, meat and dairy products, or by water and produce contamination. These hormones can bioaccumulate and have adverse health impacts that persist for generations. Specifically, estrogen has been responsible for causing gender recombinance in frog and fish populations. Toxicological and epidemiological studies have found that hormones such as “weak estrogens” can affect brain development, infertility, reduced sperm count, premature births, prostate and breast cancer, diabetes, obesity, and the early onset of puberty.

Endocrine Disruptors

Endocrine disruptors are synthetic or natural chemical compounds that interfere and disrupt normal human hormone function, production, release, transport, or activity. Some known endocrine disruptors used specifically in the agricultural sector are dioxins, DDT, PCBs, atrazine, bisphenol A (BPA), phytoestrogens, and phthalates. Most of these are in pesticides commonly used on animal feed, which help control agricultural pests and disease vectors such as rodents, fungi, weeds, and insects. Several of these endocrine disruptors have been banned by the US EPA because of the severe health effects on the endocrine system since they bind to estrogen or androgen receptors.

DDT was banned in 1972 and PCB production was prohibited in 1977 because of the known connection to environmental and health defects such as reduced fertility, endometriosis, and several types of cancer. Additionally, the children of people poisoned by endocrine disruptors have higher risks for having lower sperm levels, reproductive abnormalities, early puberty, and infertility and they can also affect the nervous, immune, and reproductive systems.

Antibiotics

Antibiotic use

Antibiotic use in farm animals began in the 1950s with the discovery of penicillin and tetracycline as a preventative measure against bacterial infections. Today, over 80% of antibiotics sold in the United States are used in modern animal feeding operations to enhance the growth rate and size of animals. That means that more antibiotics are made and used on farm animals than people. Antibiotics are necessary for these animals because the living conditions inside of CAFOs are oftentimes unsanitary and manure-filled so the animals are extremely susceptible to bacterial infections and disease.

In 2017, the FDA banned the use of antibiotics used for growth by legislating Guidance for Industry #213. However, critics suggest the mandate does not necessitate change within the industry, pointing to the fact that little change has occurred in the industry. As AFO operators find it difficult to distinguish between “growth” and “disease prevention” purposes when administering antibiotics to animals, antibiotic use continues nationally. There has been little shift in antibiotic use due to the mandate.

In 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 27 in the State of California, which requires animal feeding operations to refrain from using antibiotics on animals without veterinary approval by 2018.

Antibiotic resistance

The frequent use of antibiotics encourages pathogens to quickly evolve new, stronger strains to resist the antibiotics. This can contribute to the development of diseases such as avian flu and swine influenza. Many superbug strains have already developed in animal feeding operations, including e.coli, salmonella, campylobacter, enterococcus, and staphylococcus.

One superbug bacterium responsible for causing a strain of staph infections (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus — MRSA) kills more Americans each year than auto-immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) does. Overall, 23,000 people die every year of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the United States, and this number is steadily increasing. As greater numbers of bacteria develop antibiotic immunity, doctors find it increasingly difficult to offer cures for future diseases. Farm animals directly and indirectly transfer their antibiotic resistance to farm workers and to consumers as well, which is a concern because genetic researchers and scientists have run out of antibiotic strains that animals and people haven't become resistant to.

Animal feeding operation workers become immune to antibiotics more quickly, and the development of new antibiotics is slower than the rate of resistant development. Antibiotic resistance typically develops in two years, but can often develop even quicker.^[43] For instance, in 2005, a study of pig farms in the Netherlands found that "livestock-associated strains" of MRSA were transferred to farmers and their families within that year, and had spread to 1/5 of the entire country's population by 2007.

August 2016 was the first case of a human death from the 'ultimate superbug,' Klebsiella. This bacteria proved to be resistant to every synthesized antibiotic, even ones not available to the public.

Environmental Injustice

Environmental justice is defined as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income regarding the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies." The topic of environmental justice is relevant to animal agriculture because the adverse effects of CAFOs and other farming operations are often more concentrated around rural communities of color with largely agricultural economies. CAFOs in the American Midwest tend to leak nitrates from waste lagoons into local groundwater, resulting in nitrate levels 5-10% above what is considered to be safe. Researchers reflect that levels such as 9.6% higher than what is safe are “average” examples of CAFO pollution. Residents in these communities become discouraged from drinking the water since it had been contaminated. External research demonstrates that people in these areas consumer more sweetened beverages.

Primarily, localized CAFO pollution disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color, making this an issue of environmental racism. One study published in 2002 found that the likelihood of residential proximity to CAFOs averaged rates 2.4-3.6 times higher for poorer communities and communities of color than around white, upper-class communities. This disparity could be even larger depending on the state. For instance, in North Carolina, pig CAFOs are roughly 20 times more concentrated around the state’s poorest and most ethnically diverse communities than around the state’s most wealthy and ethnically homogenous communities.

Additionally, low-income people and people of color will continue to suffer from the impacts of modern animal agriculture policy, as:

·      Intensive farming practices accelerate the rate of anthropogenic climate change, leading to the loss of arable land and resources, and ultimately to higher produce and animal product costs.

·      Working class jobs are lost as the seafood industry struggles to cope with ocean acidification brought on by similar drivers of climate change that kill species and destroy aquatic habitats.

·      Red-lining and other discriminatory housing zoning practices regulate more waste to areas where people of color and low-income communities are allowed to live, triggering disease and short DALYs.

·      People of color are forced to migrate in hostile political climates due to submerged islands and coastlines.

·      Resource wars, such as the Bolivian Water Wars, break out due to resource scarcity triggered in part by CAFO effects on pollution and climate change.

Hog farms

CAFOs such as hog farms have benefits such as providing a low-cost source of meat due to an efficient feeding and housing of animals, increased facility size, and animal specialization. When CAFOs are proposed in a local area, it is usually assumed that they will enhance the local economy and increase employment. Hog farms are seen all over the United States. They are especially common in North Carolina, Iowa, and Minnesota. According to the United States census, Hog and pig sales were $4.4 billion, or 24.6 percent, higher in 2012 than in 2007.

Runoff that comes from CAFOs such as hog farms, particularly the ones in Maryland and North Carolina, have contributed to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, which is a toxic microorganism. It has killed millions of fish and caused extensive skin irritation, short-term memory loss and other cognitive problems in local people. The nutrients in the waste of animals in CAFOs, such as hog farms, also contains nutrients that cause algal blooms, leading to dead zones. Toxins in run off from hog farms and other CAFOs, have contributed to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Also, ammonia, a toxic form of nitrogen released in gas form during waste disposal, can be carried more than 300 miles through the air before getting back into water, where it causes algal blooms, killing fish.

North Carolina

North Carolina's number of hog farms grew exponentially between the mid 1980’s and mid 1990’s, making the state the second largest pig meat producer in the nation. Hog farms are often accompanied by odors and fumes from hydrogen sulfide and ammonia in waste. Nearby residents report that they sometimes wear masks to cover their noses and mouths when going outside because the odor is so strong and the pollution is known to cause respiratory problems. Additionally, CAFOs utilize hog waste as fertilizer for feed crops. When fields are sprayed, residents report that the waste sometimes hits their homes.

The state's county with the most hog farms as of 2012 is Duplin, found in the southeastern part of the state. According to the US Census Bureau, 25% of Duplin County lives in poverty, 23% are without health insurance, and 26% are Black / African American. It neighbors Sampson County, which has the second highest population of hog farms and has similar population statistics; 21% live in poverty, 20% without health insurance, and 26% are Black / African American. On the other hand, Wake County, which has no hog farms, has a low 11% poverty rate, 12% of the population without health care, and 21% of the population Black / African American.

Conflict of Interest

Donald J. Trump's agricultural platform is an area of contention among scientists, public health professionals, epidemiologists, toxicologists, environmentalists, farm communities, and agricultural workers. Points of contention include conflicts of interest among the heads of the agricultural team who do not accurately reflect the population of the agriculture industry.

Representation

The majority of agricultural workers in the United States are low-income people of color with a fair gender distribution. However, Trump's agricultural team is predominantly White, male, and upper class, drawing controversy over misrepresentation of interests. Specifically, members of the agricultural team include:

Charles Herbster, Sam Clovis, Rebeckah Adcock, Robert Aderholt, Jay Armstrong, John Block, Mike Brandenburg, Terry Branstad, Sam Brownback, Chuck Conner, Mike Conaway, Jack Dalrymple, Rodney Davis, Mary Fallin, Eddie Fields, Steve Foglesong, Jim Gilmore, Bob Goodale, Bob Goodlatte, Mike Green, Helen Groves, Ron Heck, Hans Hunts, Cindy Hyde-Smith, A.G. Kawamura, Charlotte Kelly, Mark Killian, Tsosie Lewis, Forrest Lucas, Mike McCloskey, Beau McCoy, Ted McKinney, Sid Miller, Jim Moseley, Brian Munzlinger, Tom Nassif, Bill Northey, Rick Perry, Ryan Quarles, Bruce Rastetter, Jim Reese, Larry Rhoden, Pete Ricketts, Pat Roberts, Marcus Rust, Leslie Rutledge, David Spears, Dr. Mike Strain, Annette Sweeney, Kip Tom, Sonny Perdue, Johnny Trotter, Steve Wellman, and John Wilkinson.

Notably, on August 16th, 2017, Trump appointed Brian Klippenstein as the transition leader for the United States Department of Agriculture. Klippenstein has drawn criticism from sustainability and animal rights advocates due to his status as an executive director for Protect the Harvest, a group demanding unrestricted utilization of non-human animals, despite ethical and environmental consequences.

Five months after Klippenstein's appointment, on January 19th, 2017, Trump chose Sonny Perdue to be his Secretary of Agriculture. Perdue firmly denies the existence of global climate change, drawing criticism from scientists both internationally and domestically, who have demonstrated the factual existence of the process. Scientists, environmentalists, and concerned citizens all fear that Purdue will maintain and expand practices that increase the rate of climate change, rather than taking action against the danger. Perdue's election presents a clear conflict of interest, as one of the key missions of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is to effectively respond to the aforementioned threat.

References

1 Jump up ^ Kornegay, E. T. (1996-05-22). Nutrient Management of Food Animals to Enhance and Protect the Environment. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-56670-199-0.

2 ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} "Agriculture in Environmental Justice". UUA.org. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

3 ^ Jump up to: ^{a b c} "Document Display | NEPIS | US EPA". Retrieved 2017-03-06.

4 Jump up ^ Wilson, Sacoby M; Howell, Frank; Wing, Steve; Sobsey, Mark (2017-03-06). "Environmental injustice and the Mississippi hog industry.". Environmental Health Perspectives. 110 (Suppl 2): 195–201. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1241163. PMID 11929728.

5 Jump up ^ Wing, S; Cole, D; Grant, G (2017-03-06). "Environmental injustice in North Carolina's hog industry.". Environmental Health Perspectives. 108 (3): 225–231. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1637958. PMID 10706528.

6 Jump up ^ Foley, Jonathan A.; DeFries, Ruth; Asner, Gregory P.; Barford, Carol; Bonan, Gordon; Carpenter, Stephen R.; Chapin, F. Stuart; Coe, Michael T.; Daily, Gretchen C. (2005-07-22). "Global Consequences of Land Use". Science. 309 (5734): 570–574. doi:10.1126/science.1111772. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 16040698.

7 Jump up ^ Sumaila, U. Rashid; Cheung, William W. L.; Lam, Vicky W. Y.; Pauly, Daniel; Herrick, Samuel (2011-12-01). "Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries". Nature Climate Change. 1 (9): 449–456. doi:10.1038/nclimate1301. ISSN 1758-678X.

8 Jump up ^ Hofrichter, Richard (2000-01-01). Reclaiming the Environmental Debate: The Politics of Health in a Toxic Culture. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-58182-0.

9 Jump up ^ Piguet, Étienne; Pécoud, Antoine; Guchteneire, Paul F. A. (2011-06-23). Migration and Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-01485-5.

10          Jump up ^ Otto, Birke; Böhm, Steffen (2006-10-01). ""The people" and resistance against international business: The case of the Bolivian "water war"". Critical perspectives on international business. 2 (4): 299–320. doi:10.1108/17422040610706631. ISSN 1742-2043.

11          Jump up ^ Gleick, Peter H. (1993-01-01). "Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security". International Security. 18 (1): 79–112. doi:10.2307/2539033. JSTOR 2539033.

12          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} "North Carolina in the Global Economy". www.ncglobaleconomy.com. Retrieved 2017-03-18.

13          Jump up ^ Victoria, Department of Environment and Primary Industries,. "Agricultural chemical use". agriculture.vic.gov.au. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

14          Jump up ^ "Hormones from livestock operations may skew fish gender toward males — Environmental Health News". www.environmentalhealthnews.org. Retrieved 2017-04-17.

15          Jump up ^ "The Controversy Over Added Hormones in Meat and Dairy | MountainView Hospital". mountainview-hospital.com. Retrieved 2017-04-17.

16          Jump up ^ Park, Bradley J.; Kidd, Karen (2005-08-01). "Effects of the synthetic estrogen ethinylestradiol on early life stages of mink frogs and green frogs in the wild and in situ". Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 24 (8): 2027–2036. doi:10.1897/04-227R.1. ISSN 1552-8618.

17          Jump up ^ "Do Hormones in the Food Supply Affect the Human Body?". Retrieved 2017-04-17.

18          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} Mnif, Wissem; Hassine, Aziza Ibn Hadj; Bouaziz, Aicha; Bartegi, Aghleb; Thomas, Olivier; Roig, Benoit (2017-04-23). "Effect of Endocrine Disruptor Pesticides: A Review". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 8 (6): 2265–2303. doi:10.3390/ijerph8062265. ISSN 1661-7827. PMC 3138025. PMID 21776230.

19          Jump up ^ "Tox Town - Endocrine Disruptors - Toxic chemicals and environmental health risks where you live and work - Text Version". toxtown.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

20          Jump up ^ "Endocrine disruptors - Chemicals - Environment - European Commission". ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

21          Jump up ^ "Groups want end to factory farm pollution loopholes dating back to 1970s". Retrieved 2017-03-18.

22          Jump up ^ "A guy who exists purely to troll the Humane Society was just hired by Donald Trump". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2017-03-05.

23          Jump up ^ EPA,OA, US. "Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-06.

24          Jump up ^ "What are climate change feedback loops?". The Guardian. 2011-01-05. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-04-21.

25          Jump up ^ Weis, Tony (2000). The Ecological Hoofprint: The Global Burden of Industrial Livestock. New York: Zed Books. p. 134. ISBN 1-78032-097-3.

26          Jump up ^ Lemonick, Michael D. (2010-04-30). "Study: Evidence for an Arctic Climate Feedback Loop". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2017-03-06.

27          Jump up ^ Saunois, M.; Jackson, R. B.; Bousquet, P.; Poulter, B.; Canadell, J. G. (2016-01-01). "The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (12): 120207. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207. ISSN 1748-9326.

28          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b c d e} "Socially Responsible Agricultural Project". Socially Responsible Agricultural Project. Retrieved 2017-03-06.

29          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} Hiebrar, Carrie (2010). "Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities" (PDF). Center for Disease Control. Retrieved March 5, 2017.

30          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} Hooiveld, Mariëtte; Smit, Lidwien A. M.; van der Sman-de Beer, Femke; Wouters, Inge M.; van Dijk, Christel E.; Spreeuwenberg, Peter; Heederik, Dick J. J.; Yzermans, C. Joris (2016-02-17). "Doctor-diagnosed health problems in a region with a high density of concentrated animal feeding operations: a cross-sectional study". Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source. 15: 24. doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0123-2. ISSN 1476-069X. PMC 4758110. PMID 26888643.

31          Jump up ^ Kate Celender, The Impact of Feedlot Waste on Water Pollution under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 33 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 947 (2009), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol33/iss3/7

32          Jump up ^ "Trump repeal of stream rule helps coal, at expense of climate and species". Retrieved 2017-04-22.

33          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} Strom, Stephanie (2017-01-31). "What to Make of Those Animal-Welfare Labels on Meat and Eggs". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-03-18.

34          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} "How to Read Meat and Dairy Labels : The Humane Society of the United States". www.humanesociety.org. Retrieved 2017-03-20.

35          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} "A Consumer's Guide to Food Labels and Animal Welfare | Animal Welfare Institute". awionline.org. Retrieved 2017-03-20.

36          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b c} Shea, Katherine M. (2003-07-01). "Antibiotic Resistance: What Is the Impact of Agricultural Uses of Antibiotics on Children's Health?". Pediatrics. 112 (Supplement 1): 253–258. ISSN 0031-4005. PMID 12837918.

37          Jump up ^ "The Overuse of Antibiotics in Food Animals Threatens Public Health | Consumers Union". Consumers Union. 2012-11-09. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

38          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b c d} Moyer, Melinda Wenner. "The Looming Threat of Factory Superbugs". Scientific American. 315 (6): 70–79. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1216-70.

39          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} "Trends in U.S. Antibiotic Use". www.pewtrusts.org. Retrieved 2017-04-17.

40          Jump up ^ CNN, Madison Park. "California's Senate passes sanctuary state bill". CNN. Retrieved 2017-04-17.

41          Jump up ^ "Antibiotics in meat feed resistance in humans | Lexington Herald Leader". www.kentucky.com. Retrieved 2017-04-17.

42          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} Zaraska, Marta (2016). Meathooked. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-03662-2.

43          ^ Jump up to: ^{a b} Morens, David M.; Folkers, Gregory K.; Fauci, Anthony S. (2004-07-08). "The challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases". Nature. 430 (6996): 242–249. doi:10.1038/nature02759. ISSN 0028-0836.

Jump up ^ "Woman dies from infection resistant to all available antibiotics". New Scientist. Retrieved 2017-04-21.

1. REDIRECT Environmental impacts of animal husbandry in the United States

• From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.