| Hog Watch Manitoba News June 2003 |
| Index:
Canadian
farmers brace for costly new feed rules Low prices worry pork producers FREDERICTON (CP) - New Brunswick pork producers are calling for disaster relief, saying their losses over the past year have reached $5.5 million because of low prices. NB Pork chairman John Bos says prices are just beginning to recover from a crash back in 1998. In the meantime, he said, there’s not enough cash flow for farmers to feed their families and herds. Bos said the province
has announced more safety net funding, but producers won’t have
the cash in hand for months and they also can’t get loan guarantees
to refinance old debts such as feed costs. Corporate food system runs counter to nature and community JANICE
HARVEY You are what you eat. With the discovery of mad cow disease in Alberta, this time worn maxim has a new significance, and that's a good thing. With graphic images of feedlots, rendering plants, and vegetarian animals being fed livestock parts fresh in our minds, now is the time to consider the nature of the food that fuels our bodies, and from whence it has come. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States and translated into Canadian terms by the David Suzuki Foundation has determined that the production and distribution of food in North America is one of the top three contributors to the environmental impact of the average Canadian household. The other two top contributors are housing and household operation (utilities, water and sewage, furnishings and appliances, cleaning products and services, paints, etc.) and transportation. If you think of our households having an 'ecological footprint,' together these three aspects of our daily lives contribute from 70 to 90 per cent of that total footprint, considering the cradle-to-grave impacts of the products we buy to support our lifestyles. Let's look at food. The food we eat contributes 11 per cent of the total household output of greenhouse gases which cause global warming; 21 per cent of common and 13 per cent of toxic air pollution; 47 per cent of common and 26 per cent of toxic water pollution; and 78 per cent of aquatic and 54 per cent of terrestrial habitat alteration, the categories of environmental problems that pose the greatest to the earth's ecology and human health. These environmental problems are related to today's industrialized food system. This is the capital and energy intensive, mechanized, geographically concentrated, large scale production of single species of food products. Massive fields of single crops, and feedlots, barns or ocean cages containing tens and hundreds of thousands head of livestock or fish are the production sites. Depending on the product, whether crop, meat or fish (industrial aquaculture), production and distribution is supported by chemical inputs: insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, parasiticides, synthetic fertilizers, antifoulants, vaccines, antibiotics, preservatives and dyes among others. The industrialized food system is generally driven by corporate processors (e.g. Maple Leaf, Cargill, McCain) that are vertically integrated through the entire food system. Large food processors either own or contract directly with production units (farms). They also supply seed, chemicals and feed, and sometimes own supermarket chains. Processors dictate production conditions such as irrigation, animal confinement, seed (increasingly genetically engineered), species or breed, chemical and pharmaceutical treatments, among others. In an unending quest for market domination, corporate processors put the squeeze on local processors by keeping prices low and then moving in. In the Maritimes, for example, soon after Hub meat packers in Moncton shut down and slaughterhouse operations moved to Larsen in Nova Scotia, Larsen was bought by the Canadian giant Maple Leaf. In order to keep food prices low, unions are busted (witness the shake-down of the meat-packing industry in the west by Maple Leaf after Wallace McCain took the helm), the price paid to the producer is near, at, and even below the cost of production, and expensive, powerful lobbies are mounted to keep environmental and health standards at bay. This system, backed up by government policy and subsidies, has put a lethal squeeze on small-scale producers across North America. Many a farmer - potato, hog, beef - has been driven out of business by having to sell to a processor for less than the cost of production too many years in a row. From nearly 50,000 farmers in the early 1950s in New Brunswick, we are now down to a couple thousand or so With the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), that trend is moving into Mexico. Peasants who can't compete with the mega-farms of southwestern U.S. (most of which are dependent on irrigation) are being forced off their land. The proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) now being negotiated with Central and South American countries, will push the trend even further south and is being vehemently opposed by small-scale producers there who see the end of local agriculture and food self-sufficiency as the price to be paid for so-called free trade. As food has become corporate and globalized, it has also become cheap to buy. How is it possible that strawberries from California are sold cheaper in the supermarkets than local strawberries can be at the farm market? The fact is, we are paying a very dear price through environmental degradation, health problems, loss of jobs and communities, and a decrease in food self-sufficiency. In exchange for cheap food, we have turned food - the stuff of life - into a commodity that takes far more from the earth and from society than it puts back. Consider this: it takes 10-15 calories (units of energy) to produce one calorie of food energy by industrial agriculture. This calculation considers chemical and feed inputs, water use, processing and transportation. There are many environmental and health impacts of industrial agriculture, mad cow disease included, which I will outline in future columns. The source of these problems is structural and driven by huge corporations playing in a global market under free trade rules, a system in which producers have become bit players. The group most likely to turn things around are consumers - you and I. Until there is widespread awareness of the roots of the problems with industrial agriculture, however, little is likely to happen. More on all of this next week. Janice Harvey is a
freelance writer. Her column appears on Wednesday. She can be reached
by e-mail at waweig@nbnet.nb.ca
First, there are those who
will continue to resist assimilation. Consider the Old Order Mennonites
and Amish farming communities. Their relationship to technology remains
fully one of choice. They have chosen for autonomy of community and dignity
of labour. Eve n though many of us cannot join them in their rejection
of so many labour-saving devices; they have won both our respect and a
valued place among us. Third, the industrialization of agriculture is dependent on a growing disconnect between farming as husbandry and food as culture. Industrial agriculture knows only one mantra: costs must continue to be cut. It has banked on the belief that consumers will always choose for the lowest price. They won't. Already industri al agriculture finds it necessary to "educate the consumer." As consumers demand more transparent information and resist prepackaged messages, industrial agriculture will discover that delivering cut-price commodities has also cheapened food as a cultural feature. Consider Toronto and its desire to be "world class." Food is essential to entertainment, tourism and culture. Why then does Toronto settle for cheap food? Fourth, industrial
agriculture needs a massive subsidy every day. Developed world subsidies
for modern farming have climbed to one billion dollars per day, with the
largest handout slices in the United States and the European Union. Look
beyond the official political rhetoric that one billion dollars buys us
family farms and rural communities. Less than 1% of North Americans are
full-time farmers. Farm work has become technology-at-work. Subsidies
keep industrial agriculture's technology bills paid. US
pork producers form aggressive new lobby group Intensive livestock operations not 'normal' Re: Joe Dolecki's letter NDP government backs hog operations (Free Press, June 4). I am part of a group of 500-plus citizens who have signed a petition opposed to a proposed intensive livestock operation to be located in the eastern region of Manitoba in the RM of Whitemouth. Our community is just beginning the grassroots process outlined by Dolecki in his article. We, too, are wondering if the council will make the right decision based on the democratic concerns of the overwhelming majority of the community and not on the strong-arm or scare tactics of the proponents, the industry or the government. What constitutes normal farming practices? Manitoba has used this questionable designation to enact legislation and guidelines such as the Farm Practices Protection Act and the Farm Practices Guidelines for Hog Producers in Manitoba, which have entrenched dubious farming practices in the form of intensive livestock operations, taken away the rights of other landowners, and put the health of people and the environment at risk, all under the guise of protecting farmlands and "normal" farming operations. But can an intensive livestock operation be termed a "normal" farming operation? Many farmers -- and I am one of them -- don't think so. It is notable that while we farmers make up less than three per cent of the population of Manitoba, farm operations accounted for almost 40 per cent of all infractions under the Environment Act last year. Many of those infractions came from intensive livestock operations, which make up only a fraction of the farmers in Manitoba. As a farmer who raises 100 head of swine a year as part of my operation, I resent having those animal factories classified as a "normal" farming operation and impinging upon the reputation of responsible farmers. In our local situation, farmers and other landowners have signed a petition against having an intensive livestock operation imposed on our community. If the farming community itself does not want this, then an intensive livestock operation is not "normal" from this community's point of view. Therefore, whom is the government trying to protect in these acts? Is it the interests of one person (who might be fronting for a corporation) over those of everyone else? Fundamentally, the issue revolves around all landowners' rights, whether farmers or not, to be able to prevent projects that impinge detrimentally on their common-law right to enjoy their land nuisance-free, versus the right of another to conduct a factory farming operation that our bureaucracy has deemed to be a "normal" farming practice. It is inconceivable that in a democratic society, our government would enact legislation that entrenches and protects questionable farming practices in the form of intensive livestock operations for a tiny minority (less than one per cent) to the detriment of the vast majority of other farmers and landowners (in excess of 99 per cent). It is even more inconceivable,
given the fact that a large portion of the minority, the farming community
itself questions the validity of terming intensive livestock operations
"normal" farming practices. "Normal Farming Practice" not acceptable The World Health Organization is presently shinning the spotlight on Toronto's SARS. This disease which has "jumped" from animals to humans has cost Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars just at a time when they are recovering from the expenditures related to Walkerton. Again, this was a disease which originated in animals. Ontario and Canada may, in the future, become noted for its third world style agricultural practices which are a silent killer. For instance, cattle and pigs carry bacteria and viruses that can cause stomach ulcers, respiratory disease, stomach cancer, intestinal maladies and destroy kidneys. Many of these diseases, such as stomach ulcers, are not a reportable. Our water and air are polluted, without regard for human health through "normal farming practices" which are enshrined in our legislation, such as the Ontario Water Resources Act. Since Public Health Units have no jurisdiction over rural water, unless there is a beach present, the backwaters of our country are being destroyed. Non-farming rural residents seem to be the only champions of public health in the vast, scarcely populated areas of Canada. What urban residents don't seem to realize is, polluted water makes its way into their city water treatment systems which aren't always updated. The City of Milwaukee found this out after cattle manure containing cryptosporidium made it into their water treatment system. Thousands of people fell ill and over 100 died....more than have been killed by SARS. It was pharmacists who discovered the problem. They couldn't keep diarrhea treatment products on their shelves. It's time Ontario removed the words, "normal farming practice" from its legislation and stopped farms, big and small, from polluting our water and air. It's our health. Regards, Donna McPherson (613)
354-6393
Excess
Nitrogen Affecting Human Health
McDonald's
Will Tell Meat Suppliers to Cut Antibiotics Use By Marc Kaufman
The policy being announced today, the broadest in the United States, focuses on the use of antibiotics in animal feed to speed the development of livestock -- a practice widely seen by researchers as the least important and most expendable use of important antibiotics. Because McDonald's is the nation's largest purchaser of beef and among the largest for chicken and pork, its action will noticeably reduce the amount of antibiotics being used as growth promoters. Beyond that, consumer and public health advocates as well as McDonald's executives said they hope the announcement will mark a turning point in the way U.S. farmers raise animals. "This is a highly significant policy and change," said Rebecca Goldburg of Environmental Defense, an advocacy group that participated in McDonald's review of its practices. "This policy is global and it goes beyond anything we have seen from other companies." Linda Tollefson, deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine, who also reviewed McDonald's proposal, said: "When a very large and international company does something like this, it's an important step. They will set the tone in the marketplace." According to the Animal Health Institute, which represents manufacturers of drugs for animal use, almost 22 million pounds of antibiotics were used on farms in 2001. That group estimates that 13 percent to 17 percent of that total is for growth promotion, but the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group, has said its research shows that more than 50 percent of the total could be considered growth promotion. The McDonald's policy will prohibit its direct suppliers, which mainly provide chicken, from using 24 growth promoters that are closely related to antibiotics used in human medicine. The firm, in deciding which independent farmers will supply its beef, chicken and pork, will consider it a "favorable factor" if the supplier avoids growth promoters. The policy will be effective worldwide by the end of 2004 and will require suppliers to keep records and submit to regular audits. Public health and FDA officials said the audits will make the program considerably stronger than others announced by fast-food competitors and chicken producers in recent years. Overuse of antibiotics on farms and to treat human ailments has made some old-line antibiotics such as penicillin and tetracycline much less effective than they once were. Concern that the life cycle of newer antibiotics called fluoroquinolones would be similarly cut short has spurred doctors and public health officials to action. The use of small but regular amounts of antibiotics in animal feed -- which helps the animals grow quickly -- inevitably leads bacteria in the animals to evolve into forms that are immune to the antibiotics' effects. Those resistant bacteria can be transferred to people, who will not be helped by related antibiotics they might need should they become sick. Efforts to reduce antibiotic use have focused on growth promoters because speeding the growth of farm animals is not considered a high-priority use. The European Union voted to ban the practice in 1998. The FDA has also sought to reduce overuse of antibiotics, but the effort has had little effect on U.S. farms. An FDA effort to ban an animal antibiotic called Baytril, a fluoroquinolone related to the human antibiotic Cipro, triggered a lengthy regulatory appeals process by Bayer Corp. Participants in the McDonald's effort offered their model as a way to make progress. "They brought together all the stakeholders and looked at the science and came up with a policy that will encourage the sustainable use of antibiotics on the farm," said Dennis Erpelding, manager for corporate affairs of Elanco Animal Health, one of the five largest producers of drugs for animals. The McDonald's policy accepts the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals and to prevent and control disease outbreaks on farms. Some activists have said that could allow farmers to continue using growth promoters, which do not require a prescription, under the pretext of disease control and prevention. Overall antibiotic use on European farms has dropped considerably since a ban on growth promoters began to be phased in there, and resistance to antibiotics has declined. But reports show antibiotics are being used more frequently to treat sick animals. The Animal Health Institute, in a statement by Vice President Ron Phillips, said there is no scientific basis for the McDonald's policy. "Europe, as the result of a non-science based policy, has removed the use of antibiotics as growth promoters, and as a result has sparked a dramatic increase in animal disease and the use of antibiotics to treat that disease," he said. McDonald's has been an industry leader on issues such as animal welfare and recycling after coming under concerted public pressure. "We would love to be a catalyst for change industry-wide on antibiotic use," said Robert Langert, McDonald's senior director for social responsibility. "People have been arguing about this all night and day, but now we're taking some practical steps and expect we'll make some real progress." © 2003 The Washington
Post Company Factory Farms Grow New Roots in Developing World WASHINGTON, DC, April 22, 2003 (ENS) - Factory farms are expanding into developing countries, bringing these nations a wealth of environmental and public health concerns, finds a new paper by the Worldwatch Institute. And the environmental and health hazards of factory farms are only part of a global issue affected by increasing global meat consumption, tighter environmental standards in developing countries and international trade, according to Worldwatch Institute researcher Danielle Nierenberg. "Factory farming methods are creating a web of food safety, animal welfare, and environmental problems around the world, as large agribusinesses attempt to escape tighter environmental restrictions in the European Union and the U.S. by moving their animal production operations to less developed countries," said Nierenberg, author of "Factory Farming in the Developing World." In her paper, published in the May/June 2003 edition of "World Watch," Nierenberg notes that global meat production has increased more than five times since 1950 and factory farming is the fastest growing method of animal production worldwide. Feedlots are responsible for 43 percent of the world's beef, Nierenberg writes, and more than half the world's pork and poultry are raise in factory farms. Meat consumption "has been perceived as a measure of social and economic development," according to the author, and two thirds of the gains in meat consumption in 2002 were in the developing world. Economies of scale and rising demand have helped factory farms become the dominant force in meat production, but the environmental and health concerns of operations with capacities often in excess of one million animals are severe. Water pollution from animal waste runoff is a serious environmental and public health problem, as is the widespread use of antibiotics to speed up growth. Agricultural interests say these concerns are often overstated and that pollution runoff from factory farms can be - and is - often properly managed. But a growing number of individuals in the developed world, in particular the United States and Europe, are not convinced. With increasing pressure for stricter environmental standards and a shift away from factory farming, it is not surprising that meat producers are looking abroad for less oversight and cheaper production costs. Nor is it surprising that some developing nations are eager for economic boost factory farms appear to offer. Factory farms are expanding the former Soviet Union, Mexico, India, China and the Philippines, Nierenberg says. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization finds that Asia has the fastest developing livestock sector. Nierenberg hones in on the Philippines as the main case study for her paper, identifying a range of threats from large scale factory farms. The Philippines is an emerging center of largescale livestock production and processing in the developing world. And these operations, Nierenberg writes, threaten the survival of the nation's indigenous livestock and contribute to groundwater pollution, the spread of food-borne illnesses, and antibiotic resistance. Annual production of poultry has increased five times since 1980 in the Philippines, but most family farmers have been forced out of business or into adopting factory farming methods. The stock of native Filipino chickens has nearly been wiped out, Nierenberg reports. But the economic benefits of these businesses tempt many to look the other way when faced with the environmental and health consequences. The Philippines now houses Asia's largest pig rearing operation, producing some 100,000 hogs a year. Local water supplies near these hog farms have been polluted and local residents have "named the river where many of them bathe and get drinking water the River Stink," Nierenberg writes. "Apart from the stench, some residents have complained of skin rashes, infections and other health problems from the water. And instead of keeping the water clean and installing effective waste treatment, the farms are just digging deeper drinking wells and giving residents free access to them." The residents, Nierenberg explains, fear losing this water supply so they remain quiet about the smell and health effects of the hog farming operations. The myriad of forces that have brought factory farms to the Philippines and to other developing nations will make this a difficult trend to reverse. International regulations on factory farming and improved zoning to minimize environmental impact can help, Nierenberg writes, but a much greater cultural and social shift is needed to stem the growing tide of factory farms. "Changing the meat economy will require a rethinking of our relationship with livestock and the price we are willing to pay for safe, sustainable, humanely-raised food," Nierenberg says. "Preserving prosperous family farms and their landscapes, and raising healthy, humanely treated animals, should also be viewed as a form of affluence." This article can be
found online at the Environmental News Service: ens-news.com News of huge manure spill shocks Pembina Valley residents WINNIPEG - Residents of Pembina Valley are calling for changes to provincial law after learning they were not informed of a massive spill of hog manure near the Pembina Hutterite Colony almost three years ago. The manure tank at the Pembina Hutterite Colony, near Morden, looks like a hockey arena. One night in the fall of 2000 a pump seized, tearing a hole in the tank. Almost all the manure – about four million litres – poured into a dry creek bed. "It was just a natural drainage, but it never made it to the Pembina River waterways," says Fred Hofer, who manages the hog operations. Colony residents dammed the creek and removed the manure, using it as fertilizer on fields. At first, the colony was also supposed to scrape out any contaminated soil, but Manitoba Conservation later decided that wasn't necessary. "There was really no accumulation of solids of manure, so it didn't make sense to do that," says Al Beck, a senior manager with Manitoba Conservation. "Rather, water was released from an upstream impoundment, and flushed into this area so that it would pick up any residual manure, and then that flush water was again pumped out and spread on nearby fields." Beck admits, though, that Conservation staff didn't actually test the soil for contamination. "That would be just by visual sight inspection. It appeared to be clean," he says. He says it's likely some contaminants did remain – and while he thinks they were minimal, he can't promise that. • Area residents shocked to find out about spill • Bill Paton, a biology professor at Brandon University, says this manure is extremely potent, about 100 times stronger than raw human sewage. He says toxins could have poisoned the creek and other waterways downstream when spring waters surged through – and just looking at the creek bed would tell investigators nothing. "Clearly if people are using this water, then clearly they have to be forewarned," he says. However, because the province wasn't required to notify neighbours, only one local official was informed of the spill. Current laws only require the province to notify people when there's a chance of contamination, and then, only to notify those directly affected by a manure spill. Many local residents only learned of the spill from CBC, including George Henderson, the reeve of the Rural Municipality of Pembina, who was a councillor at the time of the spill. Henderson says the province should notify the public after any large spill. "It's only fair that the people that it could involve should be notified," he says. "It's no different that a forest fire. If a fire breaks out, you're notified, so spills, I think, is no different." Henderson says community-wide notification would ensure greater scrutiny of any subsequent clean-up. Barb Keowen, who owns a farm downstream from the colony, shook her head when she learned of the spill from CBC. "It's a shock," she says. "People have the right to know what's going on." Hofer, who manages the hog operation, disagrees. "How many people would the government notify?" he wonders. "You could cause an uproar that isn't necessary." Conservation Minister Steve Ashton says he is considering a broader notification system. He may also investigate how the clean-up at the Pembina colony was handled. "I can't change what happened in 2000, but we can look at ways of improving our system," he says. Ashton wants to hear from the public before he makes a final decision. Last updated: June 7, 2003 |