| Hog Watch Manitoba News November 2003 |
|
| Index: The Honourable Maryanne Mihychuk November 14,
2003 RE: PROPOSED PLANNING LAW CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS IN MANITOBA Dear Ms. Mihychuk: We congratulate you on your new portfolio and respectfully acknowledge Ms. Friesen's tenure as the former minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and her department's attempt to modernize planning law in Manitoba. We wish her well in her future endeavors. On a second note, we appreciate Ms. Heather MacKnight's presentation given to the Hog Watch coalition a few months ago and her good will in allowing us to get our comments in past the deadline period. Our comments will be broad in nature, as legislative language was not provided in the presentation entitled, "Planning for Livestock Operations in Manitoba - Finding Common Ground", Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs, February 2003. We would expect that the draft Act would be circulated to the public for further comment, prior to it being introduced into the legislature. Our Overall Vision for Planning = Democracy Hog Watch Manitoba envisions planning as a tool which improves on citizen's rights to self-determination. It is a democratic process, which fully maximizes citizenship and full participation. David Morris of the Institute of Local Self Reliance (Minneapolis, MN) defines citizenship as "having the inherent authority to make the rules that govern our behavior." It is a definition, which we fully support. Local government represents the people who are directly and continuously affected by land use choices and it is also the level of government most accessible to citizens. The Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs Discussion document, of December 2002, states that, the province may establish laws, goals and/or standards for matters of strategic importance. (environment, natural and heritage resources, public health, transportation, certain infrastructure and regional coordination) While we would agree with this principle, we point out that the province cannot take into account the varying local history, cultural, environmental and economic conditions that are critical to successful land use decisions. Local land use planning and zoning enables communities to move toward desired economic development goals while guiding development to environmentally appropriate locations. Economic development goals may vary from community to community and from region to region. This has become evident as some citizens and communities now question whether democracy and self-determination can exist when, such a basic activity as food production, is controlled largely by transnational corporations. On this realization, community development plans must have the ability to incorporate principles which support community economic development (CED) goals such as those advanced by the Neechi Food Cooperative. This set of principles, which has become a touchstone in the CED community, has been adopted in some form by many organizations in Manitoba. Conversely, a community development plan, must allow for the rejection of any type of industrialized agricultural activity, should the community desire so. We ask that any modification to the Planning Act enhance our vision of democracy and citizen's rights to self-determination. In regard to "guiding development to environmentally appropriate locations", we view this process to be a crucial step or layer for proper land use planning. We are thus disappointed that both the Consultation On Sustainable Development Implementation (COSDI) report of 1999 and the Manitoba IGA Discussion Document of 2002, A Review of Manitoba's Land Use Planning Law, do not emphasize the importance of ecological planning. Ecological baseline data such as carrying capacities of the air, land and water, resource extraction limits, pollution zones or sensitive areas and buffer areas are extremely important factors to consider when a community develops a plan. It is important that higher levels of government such as Manitoba and Canada provide the capacity to maintain, update and expand this baseline ecological information. This will require additional resources to monitor, investigate, research, survey and sample our natural and biological stock. While the province has suggested that it will move towards watershed district and nutrient management planning, expand protected areas, and increase conservation districts, there is no indication as to how these ecological planning processes will be integrated with development planning. Nor is there any indication that additional human and financial resources will be put in place to carry out these endeavors. As an example, we believe that up to 800 livestock operations currently raising hogs in the province, are not regulated, as they were not captured in the original 1994 Manure Management and Mortalities Regulation. This may represent up to two and a half million hogs produced annually without any enforcement and/or provincial knowledge of their location. Areas of General Concern - Health, Quality of Life, Environment and Enjoyment of Property Section 53 of the Planning Act currently establishes the steps required
for applying for a conditional use relating to a livestock operation in
any given municipality. Section 53(7), "Decision of Council"
gives the local council the authority to decide whether that particular
development meets certain criteria. In particular, Section 53(7) (b) allows
the council to "approve the application if the facts presented are
such as to establish, (iii) that such use or feature as proposed will comply with the applicable provisions of the zoning by-law and the development plan We view section 53(7) of the Planning Act as the "democratic clause" in the planning act, which, gives a community the inherent right to reject industrialized farming and food production controlled by transnational corporations. It is a clause, which should not be removed in any amendment to the Planning Act. Section 53(7) is important in that the onus of proof must be placed in the hands of the developer. For instance, health impacts to those who work in barns have been well documented, however, limited research has been conducted in North America (especially in Canada) as to what impacts intensive livestock operations have on those who live nearby these factories. To summarize some of the independent research from the U.S., Susanna Von Essen, M.D. of the University of Nebraska summarizes some of the concerns at a recent conference in Winnipeg, sponsored by the Manitoba Government. "There is evidence from a small number of published research studies that people living in the neighborhood of large-scale hog facilities are more likely to have a variety of medical complaints. These complaints range from respiratory problems to burning eyes, sore throats, nausea and diarrhea, fatigue, headaches and plugged ears. Some but not all of these symptoms are like those of the hog confinement workers, who receive a much more intensive exposure to the dust and odors associated with this industry. At this time, there are no published studies in which scientists have attempted to find physical evidence of negative health effects in neighbors of hog facilities. Psychological symptoms, including tension, depression and anger were more common in hog facility neighbors studied by the group of researchers that looked at psychological aspects of the neighborhood health issue. Quality of life does appear to be affected by the presence of the unpleasant odors associated with this industry. Thus, evidence is stronger that there are negative effects on emotions and on one's ability to enjoy life secondary to residing near large hog farms." In Missouri, the Court of Appeals ruled that Linn County had the power to make additional health ordinances to enhance the public health and to prevent the entrance of dangerous diseases into the county. This was a result of the county adopting a health ordinance in 1994 with rules and regulations regarding permits needed to operate a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). This ruling is important in that it still allows a minimum standard of state control for health but it allows for local governments to raise the level of health protection. Given that limited peered reviewed independent research exists in Canada regarding the health impacts from intensive livestock operations to those citizens living in proximity to them, the precautionary principle must be exercised in the decision-making process. The Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development declares the precautionary principle as follows: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely used by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." Over 75 scientists from 16 countries gathered in 2001 and issued the Lowell Statement on Science and Precaution. The following is an excerpt from the full statement: "Precautionary decision-making is consistent with sound science because of the large areas of uncertainty and even ignorance that persists in our understanding of biological systems, in the interconnectedness of organisms, and in the potential for interactive and cumulative impacts of multiple hazards. Because of these uncertainties, science will sometimes be incapable of providing clear and certain answers to important questions about potential environmental hazards. In these instances, policy decisions must be made on the basis of sound judgement, open discussion, and other public values, in addition to whatever scientific information is available. We believe that waiting for incontrovertible scientific evidence of harm before preventive action is taken can increase the risk of costly mistakes that can cause serious and irreversible harm not only to ecosystem and human health and well-being, but also to the economy." In Manitoba, the Public Health Act, the Environment Act, and the Sustainable Development Act fail to define or incorporate the precautionary principle within their framework. Section 53 (7) of the Planning Act and the by-law making provisions of the Municipal Act (Sections 231, 232 and 233) can be viewed as the only instruments available to citizens and local governments that allow them to exercise precautionary decision-making in areas relating to land-use planning, environment and health. And why must we take precaution? The Government of Manitoba's appointed livestock stewardship panel, recognizes the deficiencies in information within the livestock industry in this province. Some of their observations are as follows: "… the Panel was surprised at the lack of assembled information on the distribution of the livestock industry around the province. Neither the number or location of hog barns, for example, seemed to be mapped against broad geographical characteristics on a province-wide basis, nor could the Panel easily obtain a statistical impression of the density of large barn development." "Provincial and federal departments hold much of the data, but there are many gaps and little coordination." "Government is hard pressed to shape policies for the future while it lacks an overview of the present." Deficiencies are also identified in Manitoba's own Water Strategy of April 2003, which reports: "The knowledge and management of ground water resources is incomplete.
Comprehensive hydrological and ground water supply data is incomplete.
And, Manitoba's Clean Environment Commission adds the following observations. "Current environmental research and monitoring programs by the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba Conservation and Fisheries and Oceans Canada do not appear to be adequate for the long-term protection and management of the Red and Assiniboine rivers and Lake Winnipeg…Additional funding is necessary to support this initiative." "…based on the information presented during the public hearing the Commission is not convinced by information presented by the proponents, the public or the Government of Manitoba that hog production in Manitoba is sustainable." "The Commission is concerned that Maple Leaf Foods and the City of Brandon did not undertake a proper cumulative effects assessment of the developments as specified in Manitoba Conservation's Advice Document. The Canadian Medical Association, goes further in their assessment of the intensive livestock industry as they ask the Minister of Health, the Honourable Anne McLellan, "to impose a moratorium on the expansion of industrial hog farms until attendant health risks are determined through scientific assessment." (CMA resolution enclosed) Quebec, meanwhile, has decided to continue the moratorium on pork production expansion as recommended by their public consultation process, (BAPE) which took place from September 2002 to September 2003. The public hearings were to come up with recommendations for ways to have a sustainable pork production system that took into account the economic, social and environmental aspects, and to suggest models that would provide for peaceful co-existence between pork production and rural neighbors. Issues of animal welfare, feeding animal-based feed to pigs, feeding GMO corn to pigs and the protection of water supplies were all examined by the BAPE Commission. As a result of their inquiries they have recommended that the existing moratorium on pork production be extended for a year and the Minister of Environment in Quebec has agreed to follow this recommendation. Rights to Enjoyment of Property In 1976, the Nuisance Act was passed in the Manitoba Legislature. This legislation was in response to a Court of Queen's Bench ruling in 1973 (Lisoway v. Springfield Hog Ranch Ltd.), that ruled that anyone, who lives beside a hog factory, are allowed to sue for nuisance under common law. Lawyer and Manitoba Green Party Leader, Markus Buchart, observes that the Nuisance Act, "essentially took away citizens' right to sue any business, including a farm business, for creating an odor that is a nuisance." The Lisoway family and some of their neighbors were also successful in appealing their property taxes in 1969 on the basis that the hog barn had greatly reduced the market value of their properties. In 1992, the government of the day, passed the Farm Practices Protection Act, which essentially defines industrialized factory farming as a normal farming practice, and continued the protection afforded to farmers from nuisance suits. It took the legal immunity for producing nuisance farm odors out of the Nuisance Act and moved it to the Farm Practices Protection Act. Described as "right-to-farm" legislation, which has swept the continent, operators of ILO's are further protected from the common law suit of nuisance. In their analysis, both Buchart and the Canadian Environmental Law Association reach similar conclusions in that citizen rights should be restored and that they should have the ability to launch civil suits for nuisance odors and loss of property value. Extensive research from the U.S. also demonstrates that properties located near ILO's will be negatively impacted as well as detrimental to the general welfare of those persons who live close to them. John Kilpatrick, in his analysis of seven case studies performed in six different states in the U.S., determines that odor or flies from a nearby CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) will restrict the use and enjoyment of impaired property without compensation. Kilpatrick summarizes the case studies and concludes that, "The amount of value loss is typically an inverse function of distance (closer properties diminish more), a function of property type (newer, nicer residences lose more), and a function of property use (farm will lose value due to diminished productivity and comparative marketability to other farm lands). While the appraisal profession has only begun to quantify the loss attributable to CAFO's, it is clear from the above case studies that diminished marketability, loss of use and enjoyment, and loss of exclusivity can result in a diminishment ranging from 50% to nearly 90% of otherwise unimpaired value." Proposed Planning Act Changes The "Planning for Livestock Operations in Manitoba" presentation by Ms. MacKnight states that its' overall intent for enhanced land use decision-making for ILO's, is: "To create a stronger land use policy and regulatory framework for livestock operations that will lead to continued diversification of the agricultural industry in balance with the resources, environment and community interests." The power-point presentation adds that this "New approach should address problems of: - Livestock Operations being rejected without technical basis, even in
Agricultural zones. Hog Watch Manitoba strongly rejects the government's design on expanding the number of intensive livestock operations in this province in the name of diversification. In fact, current government policy and laws have enabled the hog industry to become extremely concentrated and controlled by a few large corporations. In the United States, five firms control about 65 percent of the daily kill capacity. In Canada, the top four processors accounted for 61 percent of the average daily hog slaughter in 2001. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada admits to this problem in their Medium Term Policy Baseline report, which reports that, "Many parts of the agri-food sector are experiencing an accelerated rate of industry concentration, through-out the food chain. This global phenomenon is raising concerns over market power. It has reached a level…that some players wonder whether the market power that may be the outcome, may be partially responsible for the farm income crisis." Figures from Manitoba verify this alarming trend. Manitoba's hog industry,
in terms of production from the two-year period of 2000 and 2001, grew
by thirty per cent, an unprecedented growth rate in this continent. Meanwhile,
Statistics Canada reports that in 2001 hog production increased sharply
between 1991 and 2001 and that Manitoba leads the nation in having 30%
of Canadian pigs on very large operations. In this same time period, Manitoba
Agriculture and Food reports that, "Swine became Manitoba's most
valuable agricultural commodity in 2001 with production exceeding 6.35
million head, valued at a record $860 million." However, they add
that, "82% (of the total 1,668 hog farms in Manitoba) of the hogs
that went to market came from 11% of the producers." As of October
2002, Maple Leaf Foods and its subsidiary, Elite Swine moved to being
the fifth largest pork producer in North America, having a sow base of
105,000 animals with a yearly production capability of 2.5 million pigs.
Only Smithfield Foods, Premium Standard Farms, Seaboard Farms, and Prestage
Farms can boast having a larger sow Dr. Peter Stonehouse, of the University of Guelph, summarizes the impacts the industrialized agri-food sector, have had. "The gainers have been food consumers (cost-wise and convenience-wise) and large agri-business corporations that are seeing their profits and market shares expand. The losers include the majority of farmers, who are increasingly merely managers for agri-business corporate bosses, consumers of nature, particularly of natural habitat and bio-diversity, many flora and fauna species, and, domesticated livestock species." It should be noted, that another gainer in Manitoba and Canada has been the banking and lending institutional sector, as farm debt, which is outstanding, amounted to over $4 billion dollars in 2001, an increase of 43% from five years ago. As we have stated in the past, we reject the government's intent to prohibit any municipality or planning district the ability to raise the level of protection and set more stringent technical requirements above the minimal thresholds set by the province. In Minnesota for example, their state legislature specifically confirmed county's authority to adopt feedlot standards that are more stringent than the state standards (Minnesota Statute 116.07, subd 7(k)). Recent court rulings in Manitoba confirm this right. In Grenier v. R.M. of Piney, the court ruled that, "Piney had the right to pass by-laws 15/99 and 26/02 by virtue of ss. 231, 232 and 233 of the Municipal Act, and the applicant's (Grenier) common law rights, while not denied, are accordingly limited. Sections 232 and 233 of the Municipal Act confer jurisdiction on Piney's council to pass the two by-laws. Its authority emanates from these sections, conferring generally on municipalities the right to legislate and administer standards for businesses and property in respect of safety, health and improvements of and incidental to land use." In 4500911 Manitoba Ltd. v. R.M. of Stuartburn, a similar decision was attained when an intensive livestock operator took the municipality to court on it's by-law regarding livestock operations. The judge makes the observation that: "While some aspects of by-law #036/2001 have the attributes of a zoning by-law, I am satisfied that the purpose of the by-law is to regulate intensive livestock operations. This is authorized by the (Municipal) Act, both under the general welfare provisions in s. 232(1)(a): the safety, health, and protection and well-being of people, and the safety and protection of property; and s. 232(1)(c): activities on private land (where the activity is or in the opinion of Council could become a nuisance), as well as the authority in 232(2) to regulate or to provide for a system of licenses, permits or approvals. As to the argument that the Municipality has no authority to designate an activity a public nuisance, s. 233(d) of the Act expressly gives authority to a municipality to regulate activities or things that in the opinion of the council are or could be a nuisance." Both judgements make reference to the Supreme Court of Canada decision (Spraytech v. Town of Hudson) which ruled that the town had the authority to regulate the use of lawn care products through it's by-law making process. As, was stated by J. L'Heureux-Dube; "courts should respect the responsibility of elected municipal bodies to serve the communities to whom they are accountable and should avoid substituting their views for what is best for their citizenry." In this context, we question the intent of developing a "livestock operation policy" within a development plan by-law. It is our view, and it appears that of the courts of Manitoba and Canada, that municipalities, have the legal right to govern intensive livestock operations through the by-law making provisions of the Municipal Act. This by-law could include provisions for: " limits on the number of animal units allowed per specified amount
of land If a community decides that it favors intensive livestock operations and proceeds to develop or amend an intensive livestock by-law under sections 231, 232 and 232 of the Municipal Act, then a livestock operational policy may be warranted under the Planning Act. It is at this time that a community can then review its development plan by-law and determine as to where they want to site these operations through zoning. Hog Watch Manitoba denounces the notion put forth by the Intergovernmental Affair's power-point presentation, that local governments, acting on behalf of their citizens, can be denied the opportunity to reject an intensive livestock operation without technical basis. We reiterate our view, that local land use planning, including development planning and zoning, and precautionary decision-making should be a democratic process, involving full citizen participation and not be made to be predictable and timely for the convenience of industrial expansion. Again, we stress that a municipality has the right to reject this type of development and/or regulate it through the Municipal Act. Local communities and planning districts have the democratic right to reject an industry that, for the most part, is controlled by large corporations and concentrated in the hands of the few. It is our opinion that the proposed change of removing the conditional use process and establishing standardized set back distances and siting requirements codify industrialized agriculture and specifically, hog factories and further downloads areas of provincial and federal responsibility, such as health and environment, to municipal governments. Set back and separation distances and siting of intensive livestock operations should be governed by the Public Health Act and/or Environment Act. (We however support the need for a municipality or planning district to provide their citizenry with a venue to decide whether or not an ILO should proceed, even if it is situated in a permitted use agricultural zone). In a previous letter to Mr. Ashton, then Minister of Conservation, (complete letter enclosed) we expressed outrage, that the barns themselves are not regulated under the Environment Act. This exemption is discriminatory as the barns emit hazardous pollutants such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, methane, odorous compounds and particulate matter, which at certain concentrations, impacts peoples' health and the environment. There are no air quality standards applied to the intensive livestock industry in Manitoba. Yet, in the absence of scientific evidence, the intent of the Planning Act amendment is to establish a regulation, which will standardize the separation and set-back distances of manure storage structures and animal housing structures to places where people work, live and play. A recent study prepared for the Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative (MLMMI) reports that under certain conditions, odor plumes from livestock operations can travel up to five to six kilometers. Another study prepared for the MLMMI, which measured odors from hog operations in Manitoba, concluded that there was a positive correlation between the odor level and the H2S (hydrogen sulfide) concentration for both barn exhaust and lagoon odors. Farm average H2S levels from the barn exhaust varied from 148 to 927 parts per billion. The study also cites work done in Minnesota, by Jacobson et al. (1999) that these concentrations are similar to those recorded in Minnesota hog barns, ranging from 9 to 1156 parts per billion. Both reports, however, fail to measure odors and H2S downwind from the immediate source (lagoon, barn exhaust and manure application) and suggest that further research should be conducted. What is alarming however, is that the Province of Manitoba has already recognized hydrogen sulfide as being acutely and chronically toxic to human health and have set guidelines for maximum tolerable, maximum acceptable and maximum desirable levels of concentrations. They have even gone further and just recently, amended the Drilling and Production Regulation (MR 116/2001) under the Oil and Gas Act to regulate acceptable concentrations of H2S. Schedule G of the regulation states: "1. The concentration of hydrogen sulfide beyond a well or battery
site shall not exceed either of the following levels: Manitoba air quality guidelines also exist for ammonia and maximum acceptable levels of concentration are set at 200 parts per billion. Environmental Canada has declared ammonia to be toxic in the aquatic environment as defined in Section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA 1999) and requirements for control through pollution prevention planning are forthcoming. However, there has been no indication to date that air borne emissions of ammonia will be scheduled into CEPA over the near future. Yet, Environment Canada has identified agricultural operations and the fertilizer industry as the largest contributors of ammonia into the air with each contributing 474,000 and 12,000 tonnes/year respectively. It is clearly evident that the intensive livestock industry's exemption from environmental and health legislation is discriminatory and those citizen's who live in proximity to large intensive hog barn operations, will suffer and currently are suffering the consequences. In mid-June of 2001, Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, which is North America's leading hog producing jurisdiction, instructed the University of Iowa and Iowa State University to address the public health and environmental impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO's). Involving over 40 scientists, most at the PhD level, their groundbreaking report is one of the most advanced reviews of current research and literature in North America. Their human health effects chapter concludes: "Numerous occupational studies have documented significant increases in respiratory disease and other respiratory health effects, including CAFO-related deaths, acute and chronic respiratory diseases and associated symptoms and acute loses in exposure-related lung function and progressive respiratory impairment, among those who work in CAFO's. However, it is recognized that the CAFO workforce is generally healthy, while those in the general community, including children, the elderly, those with chronic impairments such as pre-existing asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are expected to be much more susceptible to CAFO exposures. There is experimental and epidemiological evidence that very low levels of exposures to ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, known to be ambient air toxic gases arising from CAFO's, may result in adverse health effects among healthy volunteers and community residents. While limited in number and scope, the currently published, peer reviewed, community based studies of adverse health affects associated with CAFO exposures find an increased prevalence of similar symptom patterns, especially respiratory symptoms, and similar indicators of reduced quality of life. Taken together with other experimental and epidemiological observations of adverse health effects observed with low levels of exposures to chemical components (ammonia, hydrogen sulfide) of CAFO emissions, these findings support a conclusion that CAFO air emissions constitute a public health hazard, deserving of public health precautions as well as larger, well controlled, population-based studies to more fully ascertain adverse health outcomes and their impact on community health services."
"hydrogen sulfide, measured at the CAFO property line, not exceed 70 parts per billion (ppb) for a 1-hour time-weighted average (TWA) period and the concentration at a residence or public use area shall not exceed 15 ppb, measured in the same manner at the property line measurement. "Ammonia, measured at the CAFO property line, not exceed 500 ppb for a 1-hour TWA period and the concentration at a residence or public use area shall not exceed 150 ppb, measured in the same manner as the property line measurement." On top of regulating hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, the Iowa Study groups recommends regulating odor and offer two opinions for the Iowa State government to consider. Global Concerns Other health and environmental impacts relating to intensive livestock operations, which have received minimal regulatory and policy oversight in Manitoba and Canada, include the overuse of antibiotics leading to antibiotic resistance and emissions of greenhouse gases. Antibiotics Mounting evidence is confirming the view, long held in the public health community, that antibiotic use in animals can substantially reduce the efficacy of the human antibiotic arsenal. The Union of Concerned Scientists report that important antibiotics used for human medicines, (tetracycline, penicillin, erythromycin and streptogramins) are used extensively in the absence of disease for nontherapeutic purposes (growth promoters) in today's livestock production. They estimate that every year livestock producers in the United States use 24.6 million pounds of antimicrobials in the absence of disease for nontherapeutic purposes. (10.3 million pounds in hogs, 10.5 million pounds in poultry and 3.7 million pounds in cattle) Of that 24.6 million pounds, approximately 13.5 million pounds have been prohibited in the European Union as they have been classified as important to human use. Their research also suggests that 8 times more antimicrobials are used for nontherapeutic purposes in the three major livestock sectors than in human medicine. The Iowa Study Group reached a similar conclusion in their review of the literature in that the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in food producing animals (in the form of medicated feed) has been identified as the key factor in the development of resistance among food borne pathogens. This and other mounting evidence, has lead the American Medical Association to pass a resolution to, "…oppose the use of antimicrobials at nontherapeutic levels in agriculture, or as pesticides or growth promoters, and urges that nontherapeutic use in animals of antimicrobials (that are also used in humans) should be terminated or phased out…" Similar findings are now surfacing in Canada. A report prepared for Health Canada by the Advisory Committee on Animal Uses of Antimicrobials and Impact on Resistance and Human Health highlight several points of concern with regard to uses of antimicrobial drugs in food animals. "There are several points of concern with regard to resistance. First, most of the classes of drugs used in animals are also used in humans. Second, some of these are registered for use in feed as growth promoters or prophylactics. Third, some antimicrobials used in humans are administered routinely to large numbers of animals for treatment, prophylaxis or growth promotion. Such routine use is of special resistance concern because of the numbers of animals involved. Fourth, modern production methods dictate that even therapeutic treatments in some types of animals necessarily involve treatment of entire groups of animals through feed or water. This effectively increases the potential exposure to resistance selection pressure. Fifth, some drugs are registered for two or more of the following categories: growth promoters/improved feed efficiency; disease control/prophylaxis, or therapy. This could increase resistance selection pressure, eventually compromising efficacy in one or another category." The Advisory Committee issued 38 specific recommendations in their report and came to the general conclusion that, "…antimicrobial resistance is an important problem for both
human and animal health…and …that these problems warrants
changes to the ways that antimicrobials are regulated, distributed and
used in animals. These changes include: Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Manitoba Government released its Climate Change Action Plan in June of 2002. In that report, they describe some of the potential impacts relating to climate change in this region of the continent which includes, earlier spring runoff, low summer water flows and increased occurrence of drought conditions which would increase pollution levels in lakes and rivers. Some of these impacts have already manifested as Lake Winnipeg, a giant reservoir for Manitoba Hydro, is witnessing water levels corresponding to the drought of the late 1930's. Beaches were closed this past summer due to high counts of bacteria and microcystin, a toxin released from blue-green algae. Increased growth of blue-green algae in Lake Winnipeg is a result of excessive quantities of phosphorus ending up in our surface waters. Phosphorus is a constituent of human and animal waste. Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Agreement along with Manitoba's endorsement requires a 6 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. At 33%, the agricultural sector in Manitoba has been identified as the largest sector contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Manure stored in lagoons and applied on the land are a significant source of methane emissions, as it decomposes in the absence of oxygen. Methane is 21 times more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide and scientists have estimated that methane concentrations in the atmosphere are now at their highest levels in 420,000 years. It has been predicted that if Maple Leaf Foods proceeded to a second shift at their slaughterhouse plant in Brandon, the increase in hog production alone would produce an additional 50 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Manitoba's Climate Change Action Plan is unclear as to how and if emission reductions will take place in the hog industry. The Plan suggests that, "a series of targeted measures with agriculture and other sectors, cost shared with the federal government, could offer emission reductions and sequestration or sinks credits of about 4.5 Mt (4,500 kilotonnes) per year." Manitoba's recent signing of the Federal government's Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) provides one possible venue for voluntary action where support will be provided to develop and implement environmental farms plans as well as incentive programs to adopt environmentally beneficial actions. Section 24.1.3 of the APF identifies the protection of the health of the air and atmosphere as a common goal with key priority areas being particulate emissions, odors, and emissions of gasses that contribute to global warming. A Stronger Regulatory Framework If the Manitoba and Canadian federal government's were serious about developing a stronger regulatory framework, greater burden wouldn't be placed on the lowest level of government to deal with the controversial issue of siting large scale industrialized factory farms. The City of Ottawa's Medical Officer of Health recently examined other legislative approaches in other jurisdictions dealing with intensive hog farms. Of the regulatory systems that he examined, he concludes that the Canadian system is the most decentralized and that the federal departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Environment have played a very limited role, if any, in managing issues surrounding intensive livestock operations. He states that this is in contrast to Europe, where regulation of intensive livestock operations is addressed at the most senior level of government, the European Union and that the US Environmental Protection Agency establishes a baseline for state and municipal regulators to achieve in the US. He suggests that, "in Canada, the provinces have taken substantially different approaches to regulating intensive livestock operations, resulting in regulatory disharmony between the provinces and an opportunity for the federal government to provide national leadership on the issue." Environmental Defence Canada (EDC) reached a similar conclusion as their
research concludes that "there is much evidence to suggest that ILO's
are a threat to public health and the environment; however, the Canadian
federal government still has no direct regulations for ILO's." EDC
calls for a national moratorium on all factory farms until: Dr. Eva Pip of the University of Winnipeg summarizes the changes that are required to make livestock production environmentally and socially compatible. "The change that is necessary must encompass a staggeringly large array of issues: we must reformulate not only our laws (federal, provincial and municipal), we must address out monitoring and enforcement problems, our assessment and approval mechanisms, our humane standards, our health care system, our food inspection, our trade relations, and our vision for the future of Manitoba as a whole, if we truly wish to be "sustainable", and not simply use this word as a meaningless and trendy buzzword. One cannot simply revise a few regulations and hope that the entire system will reform."
At this time in writing, Manitoba's pig production is estimated to be at 7 million hogs per year. The province's slaughter capacity, provided that Maple Leaf and the City of Brandon are granted an environmental license to expand to a second shift, would be 6.5 million pigs. (ie, 4.5 million Maple Leaf, 1 million Springhill, 1 million Best Brands) This slaughter capacity also assumes that the financially troubled smaller plants of Springhill Farms and Best Brand Meats remain in business. We note that Manitoba, and in particular the Maple Leaf slaughterhouse, imports approximately another 900,000 market pigs a year into the province. Of the 7 million hogs produced, Manitoba producers also export approximately 3 million to the US. (1 million market hogs, 2 million weaners) Given that excess pig production capacity currently exists in Manitoba, even with a proposed second shift at the Maple Leaf slaughterhouse, we recommend that a moratorium be declared on the expansion of all new liquid manure systems in Manitoba. Furthermore, if finishing barns are to be built in the province, they should be straw-based systems. Federal Responsibility " The sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the livestock industry
should be prohibited. Provincial Responsibility " ILO's must be defined under the Environment Act, which would include
environmental assessments of larger operations (those over 250 animal
units). Planning Act recommendations " The moratorium should remain in effect until all municipalities
and planning districts consult their citizens and develop an ILO by-law
under the Municipal Act and then proceed to amend their development plan
and zoning by-law under the Planning Act. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Glen Koroluk,
cc. The Honourable David Anderson, Minister of Environment, Canada Letter
to Steve Ashton Dear Mr. Ashton: We would like to thank you for your time and the time of your departmental staff (Mr. Kagan and Mr. Beck) for providing us the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes to the Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation (MR 42/98). We are writing today to capture some of the discussion that took place with respect to the regulatory review as well as to provide additional points of concern, which we may have omitted in our oral briefing. Main areas of concern " The barns are still not regulated under the Environment Act even
though they emit airborne pollutants. This has implications for people's
health for those who live in proximity to intensive livestock operations.
" The phase in period (2008) for prohibiting winter spreading of
untreated manure for operations in the 250 to 400 AU range is much too
generous, however, given the impacts associated with winter spreading,
we recommend that all application of untreated liquid manure in winter
be prohibited. " We also suggest that the surface water quality-monitoring program
in Manitoba be greatly expanded to reflect the expansion of the livestock
industry.
" We support the definition of contractor and subsequent assignment
of liability through the chain of command. We are assuming that a contractor
(and/or applicator) requires bonding. Resource Issues We realize that with the proposed amendments to the regulation, there will be added resources required to inspect, permit and monitor the industry. We strongly recommend that these resources be added to the department, at the cost to the industry and not be borne by the public. As an example, we estimate that if the irrigation industry in Manitoba was levied 10 cents per cubic metre of water usage, a total of $2.5 million per year can be accrued to the government. (Assuming the industry utilizes 25 million cubic metres a year). For the hog industry, a 10 cent levy, may be able to generate $0.5 million per year. (Assuming the industry utilizes 5 million cubic metres a year). As we mentioned, and as you may be aware, the Manitoba Pork Council has set its budget to $3.4 million for the year 2003. Their income is based on a regulated per animal check-off. We strongly urge your government to amend this regulation and acquire 50% of the fund ($1.7 million) and utilize it in a beneficial fashion to improve our staffing levels in the department and to improve the quality of the environment. As an alternative, your government can place a modest 25-cent environment levy on every pig born in this province. That would generate close to $2 million a year. In our discussion with you, we suggested that fines should be greatly increased, to reflect the costs of enforcement and to set a deterrent to polluters. We noticed that administration fees are proposed for the filing of manure management plans. We suggest that these fees be increased and that they be developed on a scale corresponding to the size of operation. In this respect, we suggest that all fees for permits and environmental levies be adjusted based on size of operation and that penalty fees be applied for late filing. We also suggest that fees for permits and environmental levies be greatly reduced (or even removed) for those livestock operations that do not utilize a liquid based system. And finally, we urge that the policy of 6% vacancy rate for the workforce in high priority areas within your government and in particular, the Conservation Department, be terminated. We suggest the enforcement capacity of the department match that of the growth of the industry.
Hog Watch Manitoba supports alternative housing systems for pigs that meets their fundamental behavioral and social needs which includes these minimum components: 1) Group housing for breeding sows; It is our belief that if these types of housing system systems were used, many environmental, human health and animal welfare impacts would be greatly minimized. As well a switch to more animal-friendly systems would help address growing consumer concern over animal welfare and food safety. We suggest that any new expansion of the hog industry utilize these straw-based systems. We further suggest that liquid manure systems be phased out over the next decade and that in the interim (phase out period), all liquid manure operations immediately: 1) install ground water monitoring wells Hog Watch Manitoba supports the family farm and believe that the true family farm is one which the family are engaged in the day to day labor and management of the farm and reside there as well. We support the Nebraska definition of a "family farm corporation" where the majority of the voting stock is held by members of a family and that no corporation, other than family farm corporation or syndicate shall acquire or otherwise obtain an interest in land for the purposes of farming. A necessary component of the goal of promoting family farms is the reinstatement of single desk selling which provides equity, economic bargaining power and transparency to the individual farmer. Hog Watch believes in the protection of all workers in society including agricultural workers, and insists that they should be included within the employment standards code. We also believe that workers compensation should be mandatory for every worker in this sector. We feel that there is an opportunity for family farmers to start marketing their hogs as "identity preserved" or "organically produced" as coming from more humane and environmentally regenerative systems. As consumers learn more about the "industrial style" hog barn, many are already expressing a desire to purchase pork products from alternative systems such as the Niman Ranch product in the U.S. and Freedom Food in Great Britain. In closing, we reiterate the need to call for a moratorium on the expansion of new intensive livestock operations in Manitoba. This moratorium will give the province the time to catch up, take stock and implement regulatory change. As you may be aware, Quebec has issued an 18-month moratorium to bring change to their existing laws. As it stands and prior to the moratorium, Quebec's "regulation respecting the reduction of pollution from agricultural sources", is far superior to what Manitoba is currently proposing for MR 42/98. Thank-you, for your consideration. Glen Koroluk 947-3082 Fred Tait cc. Hon. J. Friesen
Manitoba urged to investigate Saskatchewan system ENVIRONMENTALISTS say Manitoba should investigate a new method that turns hog manure into a valuable source of power. The system, developed by a Saskatchewan company, takes the smell and dangerous chemicals out of hog manure and can eventually turn the waste into heat and power for homes. "These new approaches need to be tried or the industry will find itself very unwelcome in the province,'' said Fred Tait, a member of Hogwatch Manitoba. "Its future viability is at stake.'' There are about 1,668 commercial hog operations in the province producing about four million animals a year and adding about $900 million to the economy. But nearly every time a new intensive livestock operation is proposed in Manitoba, opponents argue against it, citing noxious odours, dangerous runoff from manure spreading and water contamination. Clear-Green Environmental Inc., a Saskatoon company, says it can deal with those concerns and then some. The company is in the process of building a $1.5- million demonstration facility north of Saskatoon in collaboration with SaskPower to showcase the technology it says will make hog production safe and clean and will provide a new power source for hundreds of homes in the province. The system takes manure directly from the hog barn to a large tank -- eliminating the need to dig manure lagoons for storage. Once inside the tank, the manure is heated to encourage development of bacteria. The bacteria digests the organic matter in the manure, producing methane gas -- which is similar to natural gas. That methane gas can be converted into heat and power. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium -- chemicals in the manure which have been blamed for polluting lakes, rivers and wells -- are broken down, purified and sold as fertilizer. All that's left after the process is complete, said Clear-Green Environmental president Ben Voss, is water. The technology shows so much promise that SaskPower has signed on as a partner. Larry Christie, a SaskPower spokesman, said the utility has invested $500,000 for four micro-turbines for the project which will convert the gas into heat and energy. Early estimates suggest the average farm -- with about 2,500 animals -- will produce enough gas to provide electricity to 100 homes. Voss concedes the technology is expensive, but he said the system won't cost farmers any more. He said Clear-Green will pay to construct and operate the plants. Farmers will pay a small amount to Clear-Green to convert their manure. Heat generated by the system will be provided to the farm to heat the barns. Tait said he'd like to see the Manitoba government establish a similar project. Manitoba Hydro spokesman Jim Peters said the utility has not been approached by Clear-Green officials, but would be interested in speaking to the company about the technology and its possible applications for Manitoba. "All of these alternative energy sources are of interest to us,'' he said. leah.janzen@freepress.mb.ca
Methane
Gas Capture Methane as a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Methane is responsible for about 18% of the enhanced greenhouse effect'. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane concentrations now are at their highest levels in 420 000 years2. Although there is considerably less methane than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is a serious problem. Methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. GHG's and the Hog Industry Manure in storage and on land is a significant source of methane emissions. When manure decomposes in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic), much of it is converted to methane gas. When oxygen is present (aerobic), decomposing manure releases nitrous oxide, another potent GHG. Manitoba's livestock industry in growing. The sale of Manitoban hogs
increased from 4.3 million to 5.3 million head from 1999 to 2000. A full-grown
pig produces 4.5 kg or 10 Ibs of manure a day. Projects to reduce emissions
from hog manure offer a considerable opportunity to start meeting GHG
reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. " Projects should consider whole farm applications Anaerobic Digestion
amounts of other gases4. Depending on digester design, methane content
can reach as a high as 95%.
very low solids content. Because they are not heated, they do not produce
adequate biogas flow for energy production during colder months. Biogas Recovery System Costs Canadian Technology Providers ONR Environmental Systems Inc. Clear-Green Biotechnologies Inc.
e EPA. 1997. AgSTAR FarmWare Software, Version 2.0. FarmWare User's Manual.
http://www.epa.gov.methane/home.nsf/pages/agstar. For additional Canadian and international technology providers, digester information and an inventory of manure digester programs and projects, visit: http://res2.agr.ca/initiatives/manurenet/en/man digesters.html. Funding Opportunities Approximately $623 000 per year will be available for the hog industry
from 2003 to 2006 (3 years). The CPC has issued calls for proposals for
activities that will assist in the adoption of new practices or technologies
by farmers to address greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Change Funding Initiative (CCFI) is a four-year, $4 million investment to help the agricultural sector address climate change and ultimately help contribute to Canada's efforts to meet its Kyoto commitments to reduce GHG emissions to six percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. research and development areas include manure management, carbon sequestrations and biofuels. Biogas Recovery - A Scalable Technology This type of technology may be appropriate for small municipalities whose landfills are not large enough support a methane recovery operation. It also reduces the amount of waste that enters landfills.
|
