Many people know that animal agriculture is far less environmentally sustainable and that diets containing excessive amounts of animal-based foods compromise our health in numerous ways. Most of our resources at the T. Colin Campbell Center for Nutrition Studies (CNS) relate to these concerns. There are other problems associated with animal agriculture that deserve scrutiny; in this article, we’ll explore three of them: antimicrobial resistance, pathogens, and inhumane working conditions.
1. Antimicrobial Resistance
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs when antimicrobial medicines
(antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, and antiparasitics) become
ineffective, increasing the risk and severity of diseases caused by
microbial species. Such medicines “are the cornerstone of modern medicine,”
so any decrease in their effectiveness has huge repercussions: researchers
estimate that 10 million annual deaths and $100 trillion will be
attributable to antimicrobial resistance by 2050.[2] But don’t let the year
2050 fool you: this is a problem today, not only in the future. It was
reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that
antibiotic-resistant infections occur every 11 seconds in the US and that
someone dies from such infections every 15 minutes, rates which outpace
previous estimates.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Priorities to address AMR in human health include preventing all infections [. . .] ensuring universal access to quality diagnosis and appropriate treatment of infections [. . .] and research and development for novel vaccines, diagnostics and medicines;” however, the most important thing we can do to control the increase of AMR is to prevent the misuse and overuse of antibiotics.[1] Toward that end, we must focus on the antibiotics used in animal agriculture, which overlap with those used for human medicine.
Resistant bacteria are not confined to animals; they can be transmitted to
humans through multiple means. In a large-scale systematic review
commissioned by the WHO Advisory Group and published in 2017, researchers
investigated the results of interventions that reduce antibiotic use in
animal agriculture.[2] They found that such interventions help successfully
reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in both animals and humans, although
the number of studies involving human populations is lower. “At minimum,”
they write, “the benefit appears to extend to farmers and those in direct
contact with food-producing animals. The evidence of benefit for the general
human population is less clear, but has potential for broad-reaching
effects.”
Effective interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance include national
antibiotic reduction targets, mandatory bans, benchmarks imposed at the farm
level, and required testing for resistance susceptibility. These are more
common in the European Union, particularly in countries like Denmark and the
Netherlands, which have implemented such policies for decades.[4]
The US, by contrast, has failed to advance a sufficient, consistent national
policy. Although individual states and cities have tried to take steps
toward preserving the effectiveness of antimicrobials, there is a glaring
need for coherent leadership at the federal level. If anything, we seem to
be moving in the wrong direction. The total share of medically important
antibiotics used in human medicine, as opposed to animal agriculture, was
less than 40 percent in 2017.[5] By 2020, it was barely over 30 percent.
Why do we use the majority of our antibiotics for animals? Partly because
they increase growth rates but also because they stifle the outbreak of
infections. Neither of these is necessary. The second reason would be a
complete nonissue if we had not designed a system of animal agriculture that
is so horribly susceptible
2. Pathogens
It’s no wonder that enormous quantities of antibiotics are needed to sustain
industrial animal agriculture: these systems are intensive breeding grounds
for pathogens that can kill huge numbers of animals and even spread to
humans.
About three-fourths of novel infections are zoonotic, meaning transmissible
from animals to humans.[6] Although many people associate these infections
with contact between humans and wild animals, intensive animal farming is
arguably the much more concerning driver of zoonotic diseases. Intensive
animal farming, as in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), forces
as many genetically similar animals into as small a space as possible and
subjects them to extremely unsanitary and unthinkably stressful conditions.
These factors all inhibit the animals’ natural immune responses, making them
highly susceptible to disease, which can then spread rapidly throughout the
flock.
The problem is that less intensive animal agriculture is not a realistic
alternative. Although free-range animals may be less susceptible to disease,
they require a much larger footprint, which results in even more
deforestation and loss of natural habitats, and this loss of natural
habitats also contributes heavily to zoonotic pathogen spread. Essentially,
there’s no winning as long as animal food consumption remains high. This
paradox has been described as “the infectious disease trap of animal
agriculture”: both more intensive and less intensive animal agriculture
systems promote zoonoses.[7] The only realistic solution, given what we
currently know, is to attack the root of the problem by decreasing the
demand for meat.
Although the exact zoonotic disease risks of particular foods and diets are
difficult to quantify, shifts toward plant-rich diets should play a central
part in reducing zoonotic disease risk.[7] Add to this the many other
benefits that have been more robustly quantified—plant-based diets are
better for the environment, human health, and animal welfare—and it seems a
no-brainer. They conclude, “National governments should coordinate their
support for a wide range of policies and activities that support [primary
prevention . . . which] can guide and empower decision-makers to escape the
zoonotic disease trap of business-as-usual animal agriculture.”
3. Occupational Hazards and Worse
Christina Cooke wrote an excellent article for Civil Eats in 2022 that
investigates not only the dangers of animal agriculture but also the failure
of policymakers to regulate the industry.[8] I would recommend it to anyone
interested in learning more about this subject.
Perhaps the most alarming fact she highlights is that the US Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is severely limited in its ability
to protect farm workers due to provisions in the agency’s 1976 budget
prohibiting federal funds from being used for OSHA oversight. Exempt farm
employers are those with operations of ten or fewer employees and no
temporary labor camp activity within the last year; such farms escape from
the “enforcement or administration of all [OSHA] rules, regulations,
standards, or orders [emphasis added].”[9]
Exemption from OSHA oversight means no health or safety inspections, no
response to employee complaints, no safety education and training, no
intervention even when there is imminent danger, no reporting of injuries,
and more. Because of this loophole, the workers at “96 percent of operations
that hire people to produce pork, eggs, beef, poultry, and milk in America”
are unprotected.[8] OSHA cannot investigate even after tragedy strikes: “85
percent of the deaths related to animal agriculture [from 2011 to 2020] were
not reported to the agency.” Some states run their own OSHA offices, and a
dozen of these opt out of the exemption, but these states must rely on their
own funds for enforcement. As you might expect, these states have lower
fatality rates than those that abide by the so-called small farm exemption.
That worker safety is deprioritized in one of the most dangerous occupations
is not only nonsensical—it’s also by design. The industries and the
lobbyists representing them are intent on hiding the dangers of this work
from OSHA, journalists, and the public at large. The exemption comes from
the same place as ag-gag laws that prohibit images from escaping CAFOs:
under the guise of being pro-business, both laws are sinisterly anti-public,
limiting transparency and accountability as much as possible.
Despite all their efforts to hide and minimize the dangers involved in
needlessly raising animals for food, we know that those dangers exist.[10]
In addition to the most obvious dangers, like being mangled by animals or
heavy machinery, CAFOs “generate and store many contaminants on-site,” which
can severely damage respiratory health.[11] Workers are constantly exposed
to these contaminants, including pesticides, noxious materials, airborne
organic dust, methane, and ammonia.
[The] health impacts of working in various agriculture and animal production
facilities are many-fold, and the majority of the symptoms indicate
respiratory exposure to irritants. Full-time barn workers, veterinarians and
residents near CAFOs are exposed to various contaminants and report symptoms
ranging from irritation of mucus membrane, eyes, nasal congestion and runny
nose, wheezing, coughing and dyspnea, asthma, asthma-like symptoms,
exacerbation of pre-existing asthma, chest tightness and exercise
intolerance. Particularly, barn workers experience annual decline in their
lung function.
Because of the tenuous immigration status of many farmworkers, it is
practically impossible for them to advocate for change even in the worst
circumstances. And to be clear, this critique does not apply only to animal
agriculture. There are countless examples of modern-day slavery at the heart
of our agricultural system. “Few cases garner the same level of attention
and headlines as Georgia’s shocking Operation Blooming Onion,” reports Tina
Vásquez for Prism:[12]
Migrants from Mexico and Central America were forced to dig for onions with
their bare hands under the threat of gun violence, earning just 20 cents for
each bucket harvested. At least two people died from heat exposure on the
job, and one woman was repeatedly raped. One of the victims’ labor camps was
surrounded by electric fencing, and they were otherwise held in cramped and
unsanitary mobile homes with raw sewage leaks and no access to food or safe
drinking water.
Such heinous crimes are not nearly as uncommon as you might expect.
Trafficking, sexual exploitation and rape, stolen wages, dangerously
unsanitary conditions, and other atrocities are rife in farmworker labor
camps, many of which are deliberately hidden from the public eye. In an
analysis of geographic information systems (GIS) data, researchers found
that more than one-third of farmworker labor camps in east central North
Carolina were hidden.[13]
How much suffering are we willing to allow others to endure so that we can
enjoy cheaper prices at the grocery store? You can learn more about
modern-day slavery and the importance of fair food from the Coalition of
Immokalee Workers.
Sadly, it doesn’t get easier farther down the chain, with the nightmarish
working conditions in meat processing plants.[14] And because every step of
this chain is highly consolidated, big farms can more easily exploit workers
without facing any competition or repercussions.
Until regulatory institutions wake up from their decades-long comas, we as
consumers can raise awareness about the violence of the industrial food
system, inform ourselves to more effectively battle against the power, and
choose to support more sustainable food systems—the kinds of sustainable
food systems that don’t directly contribute to numerous existential threats.
References
Posted on All-Creatures.org: August 12, 2024
Return to Food Hazards in Animal Flesh and By-products
Read more at
Meat and Dairy Articles
Read more at
Egg Production
Articles
We began this archive as a means of assisting our visitors in answering many of their health and diet questions, and in encouraging them to take a pro-active part in their own health. We believe the articles and information contained herein are true, but are not presenting them as advice. We, personally, have found that a whole food vegan diet has helped our own health, and simply wish to share with others the things we have found. Each of us must make our own decisions, for it's our own body. If you have a health problem, see your own physician.