(NaturalNews) The world is faced with a global fertilizer shortage, experts say, placing even more strain on food prices.

In the last few decades, an increasing reliance on industrial fertilizers has led to surging demands for the largely fossil-fuel-based products. Between 1996 and 2008 alone, fertilizer increased by 56 percent in less industrialized nations and 31 percent worldwide.

The bulk of this increased demand comes from rising meat consumption in the less industrialized world, as more people adopt a Western diet. Coupled with the recent push to devote more land to production of biofuels, the cultivation of more grain as animal feed has placed pressure on existing fertilizer production infrastructure, and a shortage has been anticipated since at least 2003.

Due to a limited supply being outstripped by demand, synthetic fertilizer prices have increased nearly threefold in the last year alone. Some Midwest dealers have experienced supply problems, leading them to restrict how much fertilizer each customer can purchase.

“If you want 10,000 tons, they’ll sell you 5,000 today, maybe 3,000,” said Iowa fertilizer dealer W. Scott Tinsman Jr. “The rubber band is stretched really far.”

Rising prices have placed an incredible financial strain on companies that subsidize their farmers’ fertilizer. In India, for example, the yearly fertilizer subsidy has increased from $4 billion in 2004-05 to an estimated $22 billion this year.

Fertilizer producers are building more than 50 new factories to eliminate the shortage, but analysts say that the supply problem will rear its head again in the long term. Because synthetic fertilizers are based heavily on fossil fuels, shortages in oil will eventually make themselves felt in the fertilizer industry. In addition, the negative ecological and health consequences of industrial fertilizer, such as creating massive “dead zones” in oceans around the world, will only worsen with increasing use.

A recent report by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recommended that people consume more local food and that farmers use more natural farming techniques, including non-industrial fertilizers.

Sources for this story include: biz.yahoo.com.
Reprinted from NaturalNews.

Pigs “have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs and certainly [more so than] three-year-olds,” says Dr. Donald Broom, a Cambridge University professor and a former scientific advisor to the Council of Europe.(1) Pigs can play video games, and when given the choice, they have indicated temperature preferences.(2)

These facts are not surprising to anyone who has spent time around these social, playful animals. Pigs, who have a great sense of smell and can live into their teens, are protective of their young and form bonds with other pigs. Pigs are clean animals, but they do not have sweat glands, so they take to the mud to stay cool and ward off flies.(3,4)

Problems With Factory Farms

Only pigs in movies spend their lives running across sprawling pastures and relaxing in the sun. On any given day in the United States, there are nearly 63 million pigs in factory farms, and 104 million are killed for food each year.(5,6) Factory-farming conditions are no better in Canada, which exports more than 8 million live pigs to the U.S. for slaughter each year.(7) In 2003, managers of Canada’s largest pig exporter faced cruelty-to-animals charges after 10,000 dead and dying pigs were found on the company’s farms. Investigators found dead pigs stacked behind barns and dead piglets in manure tanks, and all the live pigs “were in some form of distress.”(8)

Mother pigs (sows)-who account for more than 6 million of the pigs in the U.S.-spend most of their lives in individual “gestation” crates.(9) These crates are about 7 feet long and 2 feet wide-too small for them even to turn around.(10) After giving birth to piglets, sows are moved to “farrowing” crates, which are wide enough for them to lie down and nurse their babies but not big enough for them to turn around or build nests for their young.(11)

Piglets are separated from their mothers when they are as young as 10 days old. Once her piglets are gone, each sow is impregnated again, and the cycle continues for three or four years before she is slaughtered.(12,13) This intensive confinement produces stress- and boredom-related behaviors, such as chewing on cage bars and obsessively pressing against water bottles.(14,15)

After they are taken from their mothers, piglets are confined to pens until they are separated to be raised for breeding or meat.(16) Every year in the United States, 50 million male piglets are castrated (usually without anesthesia) because people who eat pork complain of “boar taint” in meat that comes from intact animals.(17) Perhaps because of the tremendous pain caused by the procedure, castration is thought to have long-term negative effects on piglets. Research conducted by Europe’s food safety agency found that castrated piglets tended to spend less time with their mothers and other piglets; according to one Norwegian researcher, “Sometimes they get depressed.”(18) Norway banned piglet castration without anesthesia in 2002, and the procedure will be prohibited entirely as of 2009.(19)

Because they, too, are extremely crowded and prone to stress-related behaviors (such as cannibalism and tail-biting), farmers chop off piglets’ tails and use pliers to break off the ends of their teeth-without any pinkillers.(20) For identification purposes, farmers also cut out chunks of the young animals’ ears.(21)

Transportation and Slaughter

Farms all over North America ship piglets (called “feeder pigs”) to Corn Belt states such as Illinois and Indiana for “growing” and “finishing.” When they are transported on trucks, piglets weighing up to 100 pounds are given no more than 2.4 square feet of space, and farmers are warned that the piglets “probably will get sick within a few days after arrival.”(22) One study confirmed that vibrations, like those made by a moving truck, are “very aversive” to pigs. When pigs “were trained to press a switch panel to stop for 30 seconds vibration and noise in a transport simulator … the animals worked very hard to get the 30 seconds of rest.”(23)

Once pigs reach “market weight” (about 250 to 270 pounds), the industry refers to them as “hogs” and they are sent to be slaughtered. The animals are shipped from all over the U.S. and Canada to slaughterhouses, most of which are in the Midwest. According to industry reports, more than 1 million pigs die en route to slaughter each year.(24) There are no laws to regulate the duration of transport, frequency of rest, or provisions of food and water for the animals.(25,26) Pigs tend to resist getting into the trailers, which can be made from converted school buses or multidecked trucks with steep ramps, so workers use electric prods to move them along. There are no federal laws to regulate the voltage or use of electric prods on pigs, and a study showed that when electric prods were used, pigs “vocalized, lost their balance and tr[ied] to jump out of the loading area” and that their “[h]eart rate and body temperature was significantly higher … when compared to pigs loaded using a hurdle [movable chute].”(27) A former pig transporter told PETA that pigs are “packed in so tight, their guts actually pop out their butts-a little softball of guts actually comes out.”(28) When a transport truck owned by Smithfield Foods-the largest pork producer in the world-and loaded with 180 pigs flipped over in Virginia, many pigs were killed in the accident, while others lay along the side of the road, injured and dying. PETA officials arrived on the scene and offered to humanely euthanize the injured animals, but Smithfield refused to allow the suffering animals a humane death because it is illegal to sell the flesh of animals who have been euthanized.(29)

A typical slaughterhouse kills about 1,000 hogs per hour.(30) The sheer number of animals killed makes it impossible for pigs’ deaths to be humane and painless. Because of improper stunning, many hogs are alive when they reach the scalding-hot water baths, which are intended to soften their skin and remove their hair.(31) The U.S. Department of Agriculture documented 14 humane-slaughter violations at one processing plant, where inspectors found hogs who “were walking and squealing after being stunned [with a stun gun] as many as four times.”(32) An industry report explains that “continuous pig squealing is a sign of … rough handling and excessive use of electric prods.” The report found that the pigs at one federally inspected slaughter plant squealed 100 percent of the time “because electric prods were used to force pigs to jump on top of each other.”(33) A PETA investigation found that workers at an Oklahoma farm were killing pigs by slamming the animals’ heads against the floor and beating them with a hammer.(34)

Health Problems Caused by Eating Pork

The consumption of pork and other animal products has been linked to cancers of the mouth, throat, colon, and stomach.(35,36,37) A study of more than 90,000 women concluded that “frequent consumption of bacon, hot dogs, and sausage was … associated with an increased risk of diabetes.”(38) However, those pork products are on the daily menu for 25 percent of kids between the ages of 19 months and 2 years.(39) According to another study, the children of pregnant women who consume cured meats on a daily basis run a “substantial risk of [growing a] paediatric brain tumour.”(40)

Every year in the United States, food poisoning sickens up to 76 million people and kills 5,000.(41) Pork products are known carriers of foodborne pathogens: One study found that more than 50 percent of the tested samples of ham were contaminated with staphylococcus, and another study determined that “traditional salting, drying and smoking of raw pork meat was not antimicrobiologically effective” against Salmonella typhimurium.(42)

Because crowding creates an environment conducive to the spread of disease, pigs in factory farms are fed and sprayed with huge amounts of pesticides and antibiotics. The pesticides and antibiotics remain in their bodies and are passed on to people who eat them, creating serious human health hazards. Pigs and other factory-farmed animals are fed 20 million pounds of antibiotics each year, and scientists believe that meat-eaters’ involuntary consumption of these drugs is giving rise to strains of bacteria that are resistant to treatment.(43)

Environmental Hazards

Each factory-farmed pig produces about 9 pounds of manure per day.(44) As a result, many tons of waste end up in giant pits in the ground or on crops, polluting the air and groundwater. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, agricultural runoff is the number one source of pollution in our waterways.(45) A Missouri-based hog farm had to pay a $1 million fine for illegally dumping waste, which caused the contamination of a nearby river and the deaths of more than 50,000 fish.(46) Smithfield Foods was fined $12.6 million for polluting the Pagan River with phosphorous-contaminated wastewater from its slaughter plant.(47)
 
Pigs and other farmed animals are the primary consumers of water in the U.S.; a single pig may require up to 21 gallons of drinking water per day.(48) Eighty percent of agricultural land in the U.S. is used to grow food to meet the needs of pigs and other factory-farmed animals.(49) In the “finishing” phase alone, during which pigs grow from 100 to 240 pounds, each hog consumes more than 500 pounds of grain, corn, and soybeans; this means that across the U.S., pigs eat tens of millions of tons of feed every year.(50)

What You Can Do

Stop factory-farming abuses by supporting legislation that abolishes intensive-confinement systems. Florida and Arizona voters have banned the use of gestation crates, as have voters in the United Kingdom.(51,52)

Stop giving your money to pig farms and slaughterhouses. Vegetarianism and veganism mean eating for life-for your life and for animals’ lives. Call or visit GoVeg.com to order a free vegetarian starter kit.

References

1) ”New Slant on Chump Chops,” Cambridge Daily News 29 Mar. 2002.
2) “The Millennium List,” The Times 9 Jan. 2000.
3) M.K. Holder, “Smart Puzzle #3 Pig,” Center for the Integrative Study of Animal Behaviors, Indiana University, 1999.
4) Meg Meier, “Oink, Moo, Quack,” Star Tribune 27 Aug. 2002.
5) National Agricultural Statistics Service, “USDA Quarterly Pigs and Hogs Report: September 2006,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, 29 Sep. 2006.
6) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Pigmeat, Slaughtered/Production Animals (Head) 2002,” 1 Dec. 2006.
7) Lisa Anderson, “Canada Livestock and Products Semi-Annual 2006,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Gain Report 1 Feb. 2006.
Kelly Pedro, “Pigs Found Dead, Dying. Seven Men Have Been Charged Over the Grim Discovery Involving 10,000 Animals,” The London Free Press 15 Sep. 2003.
9) National Agricultural Statistics Service, “USDA Quarterly Pigs and Hogs Report: September 2006,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, 29 Sep. 2006.
10) Marc Kaufman, “In Pig Farming, Growing Concern,” The Washington Post 18 Jun. 2001.
11) Kaufman, “In Pig Farming, Growing Concern.”
12) A.J. Zanella and O. Duran, “Pig Welfare During Loading and Transportation: A North American Perspective,” I Conferencia Virtual Internacional Sobre Qualidade de Carne Suina, via Internet, 16 Nov. 2000.
13) Kaufman, “In Pig Farming, Growing Concern.”
14) Zanella and Duran.
15) Kaufman, “In Pig Farming, Growing Concern.”
16) Glenn Selk, “Managing the Sow and Litter,” Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Jul. 2003.
17) Joellen Perry and Mary Jacoby, “These Little Pigs Get Special Care From Norwegians,” The Wall Street Journal 6 Aug. 2007.
18) Perry and Jacoby.
19) Guro Å. Skarstad and Svein O. Borgen, “Norwegian Pig Producers’ View on Animal Welfare,” Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Mar. 2007.
20) Selk.
21) L. Michael Neary and Ann Yager, “Methods of Livestock Identification,” Purdue University Department of Animal Sciences, Dec. 2002.
22) John C. Rea and George W. Jesse, “Managing Purchased Feeder Pigs,” Department of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1 Oct. 1993.
23) Zanella and Duran.
24) “Research Looks at Transport Losses,” Feedstuffs 17 Apr. 2006.
25) Dennis A. Shields and Kenneth H. Mathews Jr., “Interstate Livestock Movements,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jun. 2003.
26) Zanella and Duran.
27) Zanella and Duran.
28) Carla Bennett, “The Joy and Sorrow of Pigs,” Animal Times Fall 1996.
29) Linda McNatt, “25 Hogs Die in Smithfield Truck Accident,” The Virginian Pilot 30 Mar. 2004.
30) Lance Gay, “Faulty Practices Result in Inhumane Slaughterhouses,” Scripps Howard News Service, Feb. 2001.
31) Joby Warrick, “‘They Die Piece by Piece’; In Overtaxed Plants, Humane Treatment of Cattle Is Often a Battle Lost,” The Washington Post 10 Apr. 2001.
32) Warrick.
33) Temple Grandin, “2001 Restaurant Audits of Stunning and Handling in Federally Inspected Beef and Pork Slaughter Plants,” 2002 Meat Institute Animal Handling and Stunning Conference, Colorado State University: Department of Animal Sciences, 2002.
34) Marc Kaufman, “Ex-Pig Farm Manager Charged With Cruelty,” The Washington Post 9 Sep. 2001.
35) F. Levi et al., “Food Groups and Risk of Oral and Pharyngeal Cancer,” International Journal of Cancer 77 (1998): 705-9.
36) F. Levi et al., “Food Groups and Colorectal Cancer Risk,” British Journal of Cancer 79 (1999): 1283-7.
37) P.A. van den Brandt et al., “Salt Intake, Cured Meat Consumption, Refrigerator Use and Stomach Cancer Incidence: A Prospective Cohort Study (Netherlands),” Cancer Causes and Control 14 (2003): 427-38.
38) M.B. Schulze et al., “Processed Meat Intake and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Younger and Middle-Aged Women,” Diabetologia 24 Oct. 2003.
39) T.A. Badger, “Infants, Toddlers Developing Bad Eating Habits, Study Finds,” Associated Press, 26 Oct. 2003.
40) J.M. Pogoda, “Maternal Cured Meat Consumption During Pregnancy and Risk of Paediatric Brain Tumour in Offspring: Potentially Harmful Levels of Intake,” Public Health Nutrition 2 (2001): 1303-5.
41) Paul S. Mead et al., “Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 5.5 (1999): 607-25.
42) P.L. Mertens, “An Epidemic of Salmonella Typhimurium Associated With Traditional Salted, Smoked, and Dried Ham,” Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 143 (1999): 1046-9.
43) Jeff Donn, “Contaminated Meat Spurs Concern. Study Finds 1 in 5 Market Samples Contained Drug-Resistant Bacteria,” Associated Press, 18 Oct. 2001.
44) “Rains Swell Waste Lagoons at Four Hog Farms,” Associated Press, 1 Dec. 2006.
45) Sen. Tom Harkin, “Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National Problem,” U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Dec. 1997.
46) “Cargill Fined $1 Million for Dumping Hog Waste in River,” Associated Press, 20 Feb. 2002.
47) Bob Piazza and Rex Springston, “Smithfield Is Fined $12.6 Million,” Richmond Times-Dispatch 9 Aug. 1997.
48) Theo van Kempen, “Whole Farm Water Use,” North Carolina State University Swine Extension, Jul. 2003.
49) Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa, “Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997,” Statistical Bulletin No. 973. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997.
50) John Carlson, “Evaluation of Corn Processing By-Products in Swine Diets,” Western Illinois University, 3 Apr. 1996.
51) “Arizona Says ‘No’ to Gestation Crates,” PigProgress.net, 9 Nov. 2006.
52) John J. McGlone, “Current Status of Housing and Penning Systems for Sows,” Pork Industry Institute, Texas Tech University, May 2002.

This article was reprinted from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA)

(NaturalNews) In The Physiology of Taste, written in 1825, Anthelme Brillat-Savarin wrote, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are.” This is the origin of the popular phrase, “You are what you eat.” It’s no secret that America is facing an unprecedented obesity epidemic. So, just what are Americans eating?

Cows fed Junk Food

According to an article in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the average American eats about 44 kg (about 97 pounds) of beef every year. That number may be shocking to some people. However, it’s not nearly as shocking as the news reported by The Daily Green concerning the latest addition to the diet of the American cow: “potato chip and chocolate waste not fit for the junk food aisle at the grocery store.”

That’s right. Farmers are feeding cattle potato chips and chocolate scraps. Ever wonder what happens to those broken potato chips and chocolate candies? It’s bad enough that many children are permitted by their parents to eat this kind of junk food. Now, to make matters worse, they are experiencing even more ill health-effects through a meat-based diet, courtesy of farmers whose primary concern is turning a huge profit.

Cows Should eat Grass

Ask a little kid what a cow is supposed to eat, and the little kid will almost always give the correct response: grass. What’s up with American farmers? Why are they so confused? Studies have shown that beef produced from cows that eat the diet that nature intended is much more beneficial to human health.

What Else are Cows Eating?

However, cows have been given things like corn to fatten them up quickly for the last fifty years, according to The Daily Green, but corn is something that isn’t easily digested by cows. In fact, eating corn creates an acidic environment in the cow’s stomach that encourages the growth of E.coli. This, of course, requires the cow to be treated with antibiotics.

Of course, cows are also given growth hormones, and CNN reports that some farmers think regular feed is too expensive and are feeding their cattle chicken manure. (Maybe it’s so expensive because it’s irradiated — most animal feeds are irradiated, too.) If that’s not bad enough, the FDA allows all sorts of chemicals, contaminants, drug residues, and euthanized animals in animal feed. By the way, it’s no secret that many of the drugs found in animal feed are linked to weight gain. Anyone hungry?

You Are What You Eat

For those who think they can escape all of this ugliness by eating organic beef, think again. While eating organic, grass-fed beef is certainly healthier than eating the meat of cows that have been fed corn, chicken manure, chocolate, potato chips, euthanized animals, and irradiated feed laden with chemical residues, organically-raised cows still have to go to the slaughterhouse. For a great description of what happens at the slaughterhouse, be sure to read the chapter entitled “The Dead, Rotting, Decomposing Flesh Diet” in the book called Skinny Bitch by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the FDA is pretty worthless when it comes to protecting the health of the American people. The FDA even allows chemicals to be added to meat to make it look nice and red at the grocery store so that it will appear fresher longer. You are what you eat. Looking at the backsides of most Americans walking down the street, this is most certainly true.

About the author

Joanne Waldron is a computer scientist with a passion for writing and sharing health-related news and information with others. She runs the Naked Wellness: The Gentle Health Revolution forum, which is devoted to achieving radiant health, well-being, and longevity.

This article was reprinted from Naturalnews.

Amy Joy Lanou of the University of North Carolina at Asheville and Neal Barnard with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, DC, evaluated evidence from 49 clinical trials from 1966 to 2007 that assessed the effect of milk, dairy products, or calcium intake on body weight and BMI, with or without the use of dieting.

Evidence from the trials showed that neither dairy products nor calcium supplements helped people lose weight. Of the 49 clinical trials, 41 showed no effect, two demonstrated weight gain, one showed a lower rate of weight gain, and only five showed weight loss.

An association between calcium or dairy intake and weight loss seen in some observational studies may be attributable to other factors, such as exercise, decreased soda intake, lifestyle habits, or increased fiber, fruit, and vegetable intake.

“Our findings demonstrate that increasing dairy product intake does not consistently result in weight or fat loss and may actually have the opposite effect,” the authors conclude.

Amy Joy Lanou, Ph.D., is affiliated with the Department of Health and Wellness at the University of North Carolina Asheville

To view the full article or the abstract for this article, please click here.

Environmental Health Perspectives Article Implicates Role of Animal Agriculture in Climate Change

An article in the current issue of Environmental Health Perspectives highlights the connection between animal agriculture and the most pressing environmental issue of our time-climate change. Published in the peer-reviewed journal of the U.S. government’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a subdivision of the National Institutes of Health, the piece written by staff members of The Humane Society of the United States will reach public health and environmental experts and policy makers worldwide.

In their article, Gowri Koneswaran, Esq., director of animal agricultural impacts, and Danielle Nierenberg, M.S., animal agriculture and climate change specialist, detail how the farm animal production sector contributes to climate change and global warming during nearly every stage of production-from the greenhouse gases emitted by fertilizer and feed production to the fossil fuels required to operate factory farms and to slaughter and process animals. Koneswaran and Nierenberg discuss a variety of mitigation strategies not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also to improve the welfare of billions of farm animals. These strategies include encouraging more pasture-raised and organic animal agriculture and reducing consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy products to make production more sustainable.

“Although factory farming’s impacts on the environment, public health, and animal welfare are increasingly well-documented, only recently has the animal agriculture sector’s role in climate change been evaluated, and the preliminary findings are staggering,” says Nierenberg. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, meat, egg, and dairy production accounts for an estimated 18 percent, nearly one-fifth, of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions-a larger share than all transportation combined.

According to Koneswaran, “There is already a growing list of critical reasons to shun industrial animal agribusiness, and that sector’s starring role in climate change is yet another. Choosing non-factory farmed products and reducing consumption of meat, eggs, and milk are two important ways to help lessen the devastating effects of animal farming on climate change.”

Entitled “Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change,” the article appears in the May 2008 issue of the journal.

Facts:

• Globally, approximately 56 billion land animals are reared and slaughtered annually for human consumption. Farm animal populations are expected to double by 2050.
• Over the last few decades, factory farming has grown at twice the rate of mixed farming systems (crop and farm animal) and at more than six times the rate of pasture-based systems. Industrial operations account for an estimated 67 percent of poultry production, 50 percent of egg production and 42 percent of pork production.
• Climate change’s far-reaching impacts not only threaten the environment, but also contribute to increased conflict, hunger and disease.

Timeline:

• April 2008-The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production releases the results of a two-year study, concluding that factory farms pose unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and animal welfare.
• January 2008-Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stresses the importance of lifestyle changes, including eating less meat, as a way to combat climate change.
• January 2008-National Council for Science and the Environment’s conference “Climate Change: Science and Solutions” includes breakout session on animal agriculture and climate change, organized by staff of The Humane Society of the United States.
• December 2007-On behalf of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri accepts the Nobel Peace Prize with co-recipient Al Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”
• November 2007-The Humane Society of the United States releases its report, “The Impact of Animal Agriculture on Global Warming and Climate Change,” pointing to the significant roles that meat, egg and dairy production play in climate change and other serious environmental problems.
• September 2007-The Lancet, the world’s leading independent general medical journal, publishes a study that advocates a reduction in meat and milk consumption for residents of high-income countries, both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and for human health benefits.
• May 2007-The IPCC releases its long-awaited report on climate change science, impacts and mitigation strategies, finding that greenhouse gas emissions have risen due to human activities, with an increase of 70 percent between 1970 and 2004.
• November 2006-The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations releases “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options,” which states that animal agriculture is “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems” and is a major driver of climate change.

-30-

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization - backed by 10.5 million Americans, or one of every 30. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty - On the web at humanesociety.org.

According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the animal agriculture sector emits more greenhouse gases than cars and SUVs.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs)

The animal agriculture sector is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, measured in carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, higher than the share contributed by cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.[1] This figure accounts for the animal agriculture sector’s direct impacts as well as the impacts of feeding the world’s approximately 63 billion farm animals.[2] Specifically, animal agriculture accounts for:

• 9% of annual human-induced CO2 emissions,[3]
• 37% of methane (CH4) emissions, which has more than 20 times the global warming potential of CO2,[4] and
• 65% of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, which has almost 300 times CO2’s global warming potential.[5]

Mapping has shown a strong relationship between excessive nitrogen in the atmosphere and the location of intensive farm animal production areas.[6] In the United States, the primary greenhouse gases emitted by agricultural activities are methane and nitrous oxide.[7] Globally, the United States is responsible for the greatest emissions of methane from farm animal manure, nearly 1.9 million tonnes.[*][8] The majority of these emissions emanate from pig and dairy cow manure, from which methane emissions increased by 37% and 50%, respectively, between 1990 and 2005. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency attributes this increase to the shift toward housing pigs and cows in larger facilities where liquid manure management systems are increasingly used.[9] During the same 15-year period, nitrous oxide emissions rose by 10%, an increase attributed to the poultry industry’s shift toward litter-based manure management systems, confinement in high-rise houses, and an overall increase in the number of birds raised and killed for food.[10]

Farm Animal Waste

As animal agriculture industrialized over the last 50 years, more animals have been intensively confined in fewer, but larger, operations. Today, nearly 10 billion land animals are raised for meat, eggs, and milk annually in the United States,[11,12] typically warehoused by the tens if not hundreds of thousands in industrialized production facilities known as factory farms.[13] The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that confined farm animals generate more than 450 million tonnes of manure annually, three times more raw waste than generated by Americans.[14]

Feed

The production of animal feed-mainly high protein and concentrated feeds made from corn and soybeans-requires large amounts of chemical fertilizer. Animal production accounts for a very significant portion of total fertilizer use; more than half of the global corn crop is used for animal feed.[15] Corn uses more nitrogen fertilizer than any other crop, while other feed crops, including barley and sorghum, also use significant amounts. In total, experts estimate that fertilizer used in feed production contributes “an estimated annual emission of CO2 of more than 40 million tonnes.”[16]

Energy Use Varies by Type of Production System

Massive, enclosed factory farms (also known as confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs) use a great deal of energy for lighting, heating, cooling, automated machinery for feeding and watering, and ventilation. In addition, to produce feed for farm animals, the combined fossil fuel for machinery and energy use for herbicide and pesticide production and seed usually exceeds that of fertilizer production. On-farm fossil fuel use may emit as much as 90 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year alone.[17] Production systems that rely on grasslands or crop residues for feed, on the other hand, usually have very low or even negligible fossil fuel use.

Deforestation

According to the FAO, deforestation for farm animal production is responsible for 2.4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.[18] A 2004 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) report stated that the total area of forest lost increased from 41.5 million hectares in 1990 to 58.7 million hectares in 2000. In just ten years, an area twice the size of Portugal was lost, most of it to pasture for farm animal production.[19] In June 2005, the FAO predicted that by 2010, more than 1.2 million hectares of forest in Central America and 18 million hectares in South America will disappear due in large part to clearing land for grazing cattle.[20]

Food for Thought

An article published in The Lancet in 2007 advocates a reduction in meat consumption to 90 g per person per day in order to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. (A single beef hamburger patty is 80-100 g.) “For the world’s higher-income populations,” the authors write, “greenhouse-gas emissions from meat-eating warrant the same scrutiny as do those from driving and flying.”[21] Yet, while consumers have started switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs and reducing the time spent driving and flying to combat global warming, there has been less awareness of animal agriculture’s impacts on climate change. The FAO calls for action on many fronts, recommending a range of measures to mitigate the environmental assault by animal agriculture, including:

• Land degradation: Restore damaged land through soil conservation, better management of grazing systems, and protection of sensitive areas.
• Greenhouse gas emissions: Improve animal nutrition and manure management to cut methane and nitrogen emissions.
• Water pollution: Better manage animal waste in industrial production units, modify diets to improve nutrient absorption, and make better use of processed manure on croplands.
• Biodiversity loss: As well as implementing the measures above, improve protection of wild areas, maintain connectivity among protected areas, and integrate farm animal production and producers into landscape management.[22]

The Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal advocacy organization representing 1 in 30 Americans, calls for additional, critical actions each one of us can and must take:

Reduce: Every hour in the United States, more than 1 million land animals are killed for human consumption. If each one of us cuts back on our animal consumption by only 10%, approximately 1 billion animals would be spared a lifetime of suffering each year and the impacts of industrialized animal agriculture would be diminished.

Refine: Not all foods are equal when it comes to animal welfare or their environmental footprint. Each industry has its own abusive practices, and some are much crueler than others. For example, the chicken, egg, and pig industries tend to be far more abusive to animals than the beef industry, and extensive systems, such as free-range, are typically much more environmentally friendly than industrialized factory farms. Refining our diets by avoiding conventional factory-farm products helps diminish animal suffering and protect the environment.

Replace: The consequences of choosing vegetarian options are enormous-not only for farm animals, but for public health and environmental integrity.

1. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De Haan C. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p. xxi). virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2008.

2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Statistical Database. http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed March 27, 2007.

3. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De Haan C, op. cit., p. xxi).

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., p. 114.

7. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2005, p. 6-1. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads07/07CR.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2008.

8. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De Haan C, op. cit., pp. 97-8.

9. Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit., p. 6-7.

10. Ibid.

11. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2008. Poultry slaughter: 2007 annual summary. usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/PoulSlauSu/PoulSlauSu-02-28-2008.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2008.

12. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2008. Livestock slaughter: 2007 annual summary. usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/LiveSlauSu/LiveSlauSu-03-07-2008_revision.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2008.

13. Environmental Protection Agency Emission Standards Division. 2001. Emissions from animal feeding operations, draft, p. xi. August 15. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/draft/draftanimalfeed.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2008.

14. Environmental Protection Agency. National pollutant discharge elimination system permit regulation and effluent limitation guidelines and standards for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 7176, 7180 (Feb. 12, 2003).

15. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De Haan C, op. cit., p. 87.

16. Ibid., p. 88.

17. Ibid., pp. 88-9.

18. Ibid., p. 90.

19. Kaimowitz D, Mertens B, Wunder V, and Pachebo P. 2004. Hamburger connection fuels Amazon destruction: cattle ranching and deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon. (Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research), citing: Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazon Forest by Satellite 2000-2001, Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research (INPE) and the Foundation for Science, Applications and Spatial Technology (Fundação de Ciência, Aplicações e Tecnologia-FUNCATE).

20. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. Cattle ranching is encroaching on forests in Latin America. Press release issued June 8.

21. McMichael AJ, Powles JW, Butler CD, and Uauy R. 2007. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet 370:1253-63.

22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department. 2006. Spotlight: livestock impacts on the environment. Agriculture 21, November. www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm. Accessed March 27, 2008.

Date Published:  04/22/08

Reprinted from the Humane Society of The United States

Download the PDF copy of this report here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYpafipJyDE

 – 

Given the chance, cows nurture their young and form lifelong friendships with one another. They play games, have a wide range of emotions, and demonstrate personality traits, such as vanity. But most cows raised for the dairy-products industry are intensively confined, leaving them unable to fulfill their most basic desires, such as nursing their calves, even for a single day. They are treated like milk-producing machines and are genetically manipulated and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones that cause them to produce more milk. While cows suffer in animal factories, humans who drink their milk increase their chances of developing heart disease, diabetes, several types of cancer, and many other ailments.

Cows Suffer on Dairy Farms

Cows produce milk for the same reason that humans do-to nourish their young-but calves on dairy farms are taken away from their mothers when they are just 1 day old. They are fed milk replacers (including cattle blood) so that their mothers’ milk can be sold to humans.(1,2)

Female cows are artificially inseminated shortly after their first birthdays.(3) After giving birth, they lactate for 10 months and are then inseminated again, continuing the cycle. Some spend their entire lives standing on concrete floors; others are confined to massive, crowded lots, where they are forced to live amid their own waste. Cows have a natural lifespan of about 25 years and can produce milk for eight or nine years. However, the stress caused by the conditions in animal factories leads to disease, lameness, and reproductive problems that render cows worthless to the dairy-products industry by the time that they’re 4 or 5 years old, at which time they are sent to be slaughtered.(4,5)

On any given day, there are more than 8 million cows on U.S. dairy farms-about 14 million fewer than there were in 1950. Yet milk production has continued to increase, from 116 billion pounds of milk per year in 1950 to 170 billion pounds in 2004.(6,7) Normally, these animals would produce only enough milk to meet the needs of their calves (around 16 pounds per day), but genetic manipulation, antibiotics, and hormones are used to force each cow to produce more than 18,000 pounds of milk each year (an average of 50 pounds per day).(8,9) Cows are also fed unnatural, high-protein diets-which include dead chickens, pigs, and other animals-because their natural diet of grass would not provide the nutrients that they need to produce such massive amounts of milk.(10)

Mastitis

Painful inflammation of the mammary glands, or mastitis, is common among cows raised for their milk and is one of dairy farms’ most frequently cited reasons for sending cows to slaughter. There are about 150 bacteria that can cause the disease, one of which is E. coli.(11) Symptoms are not always visible, so milk’s somatic cell count (SCC) is checked to determine whether the milk is infected. Somatic cells include white blood cells and skin cells that are normally shed from the lining of the udder. As in humans, white blood cells-also known as “pus”-are produced as a means of combating infection. The SCC of healthy milk is below 100,000 cells per milliliter; however, the dairy-products industry is allowed to combine milk from the teats of all the cows in a herd in order to arrive at a “bulk tank” somatic cell count (BTSCC); milk with a maximum BTSCC of 750,000 cells per milliliter is allowed to be sold.(12,13) A BTSCC of 700,000 or more generally indicates that two-thirds of the cows in the herd are suffering from udder infections.(14)

Studies have shown that providing cows with cleaner housing, more space, and better diets, bedding, and care lowers their milk’s SCC as well as their incidence of mastitis.(15) A Danish study of cows subjected to automated milking systems found “acutely elevated cell counts during the first year compared with the previous year with conventional milking. The increase came suddenly and was synchronized with the onset of automatic milking.”(16) Instead of improving conditions in animal factories or easing cows’ production burden, the dairy-products industry is exploring the use of cloned cattle who have been genetically manipulated to be resistant to mastitis.(17)

The Veal Connection

If you drink milk, you’re subsidizing the veal industry. While female calves are slaughtered or kept alive to produce milk, male calves are often taken away from their mothers when they are as young as 1 day old and are chained in tiny stalls for three to 18 weeks to be raised for veal.(18,19) Calves raised for veal are fed a milk substitute that is designed to make them gain at least 2 pounds per day, and their diet is purposely low in iron so that their flesh stays pale as a result of anemia.(20) An enzyme from their stomachs is used to produce rennet, an ingredient used in many cheeses.(21) In addition to suffering from diarrhea, pneumonia, and lameness, calves raised for veal are terrified and desperate for their mothers.

Environmental Destruction

Large dairy farms have an enormously detrimental effect on the environment. In California, America’s top milk-producing state, manure from dairy farms has poisoned hundreds of square miles of groundwater, rivers, and streams. Each of the more than 1 million cows on the state’s dairy farms excretes 120 pounds of waste daily.(22) Overall, animals in animal factories, including dairy farms, produce 1.65 billion tons of manure each year, much of which ends up in our waterways and drinking water.(23) The Environmental Protection Agency reports that agricultural runoff is the primary cause of polluted lakes, streams, and rivers. The dairy-products industry is the primary source of smog-forming pollutants in California; a single cow emits more of these harmful gases than a car does.(24)

Eighty percent of all agricultural land in the U.S. is used to raise animals for food or to grow grain to feed them-that’s almost half the total land mass of the contiguous 48 states.(25) Each cow raised by the dairy-products industry consumes as much as 50 gallons of water per day.(26)

Human Bodies Fight Cow’s Milk

Besides humans (and companion animals who are fed by humans), no species drinks milk beyond infancy or drinks the milk of another species. Cow’s milk is suited to the nutritional needs of calves, who have four stomachs and gain hundreds of pounds in a matter of months, sometimes weighing more than 1,000 pounds before they are 2 years old.(27)

Cow’s milk is the number one cause of food allergies among infants and children, according to the American Gastroenterological Association.(28) Most people begin to produce less lactase, the enzyme that helps with the digestion of milk, when they are as young as 2 years old. This reduction can lead to lactose intolerance.(29) Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant, and an estimated 90 percent of Asian-Americans and 75 percent of Native- and African-Americans suffer from the condition, which can cause bloating, gas, cramps, vomiting, headaches, rashes, and asthma.(30) Studies have also found that autism and schizophrenia in children may be linked to the body’s inability to digest casein, a milk protein; symptoms of these diseases diminished or disappeared in 80 percent of the children who switched to milk-free diets.(31)

A U.K. study showed that people who suffered from irregular heartbeats, asthma, headaches, fatigue, and digestive problems “showed marked and often complete improvements in their health after cutting milk from their diets.”(32)

Calcium and Protein Myths

Although American women consume tremendous amounts of calcium, their rates of osteoporosis are among the highest in the world. Conversely, Chinese people consume half as much calcium (most of it from plant sources) and have very low incidence of the bone disease.(33) Medical studies indicate that rather than preventing the disease, milk may actually increase women’s risk of getting osteoporosis. A Harvard Nurses’ Study of more than 77,000 women ages 34 to 59 found that those who consumed two or more glasses of milk per day had higher risks of broken hips and arms than those who drank one glass or less per day.(34) T. Colin Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University, said, “The association between the intake of animal protein and fracture rates appears to be as strong as that between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.”(35)

Humans can get all the protein that they need from nuts, seeds, yeast, grains, beans, and other legumes. It’s very difficult not to get enough calories from protein when you eat a healthy diet; protein deficiency (also known as kwashiorkor) is very rare in the United States and is usually only a problem for people who live in famine-stricken countries.(36) Consumption of excessive protein from dairy products, eggs, and meat has been linked to the formation of kidney stones and has been associated with colon cancer and liver cancer.(37,38) It’s also suspected that consuming too much protein puts a strain on the kidneys, which compensate by leeching calcium from the bones.(39)

What You Can Do

The best way to save cows from the misery of animal factories is to stop buying milk and other dairy products. Discover the joy of soy! Fortified plant-derived milks provide calcium, vitamins, iron, zinc, and protein but do not contain any cholesterol. These alternatives are perfect for cereal, coffee, and soups and also work well in baked goods and other recipes. Many delicious dairy-product alternatives-such as almond, rice, oat, and soy milks as well as Soy Dream and Tofutti “ice cream”-are available in grocery and health-food stores. Visit VegCooking.com for ideas, or call 1-888-VEG-FOOD to order a free vegetarian starter kit.

References

1) David Goldstein, “Up Close: A Beef With Dairy,” KCAL, 30 May 2002.
2) Stephanie Simon, “Mad Cow Casts Light on Beef Uses,” Los Angeles Times 4 Jan. 2004.
3) David R. Winston, “Goals for Heifer Rearing,” Department of Dairy Science, Virginia Polytech University, 1 Oct. 1996.
4) Anne Karpf, “Dairy Monsters,” The Guardian 13 Dec. 2003.
5) Richard L. Wallace, “Market Cows: A Potential Profit Center,” University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2004.
6) U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, “Milk Production,” 18 Jul. 2006.
7) Don P. Blaney, “The Changing Landscape of U.S. Milk Production,” Statistical Bulletin Number 978, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jun. 2002.
Blaney.
9) David Pace, “Feeding a Bucket Calf,” Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University.
10) Simon.
11) Helen Pearson, “Udder Suicide, E. Coli Kill Off Milk-Making Mammary Cells,” Nature 6 Aug. 2001.
12) National Mastitis Council, “Guidelines on Normal and Abnormal Raw Milk Based on Somatic Cell Counts and Signs of Clinical Mastitis,” 2001.
13) P.L. Ruegg, “Practical Food Safety Interventions for Dairy Production,” Journal of Dairy Science 86 (2003): E1-E9.
14) National Mastitis Council.
15) S. Waage et al., “Identification of Risk Factors for Clinical Mastitis in Dairy Heifers,” Journal of Dairy Science 81 (1998): 1275-84.
16) Morten Dam Rasmussen et al., “The Impact of Automatic Milking on Udder Health,” Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality (Vancouver: 2001).
17) Michael Raine, “Cloning-New Era in Breeding Technology Raises Hopes, Concerns,” The Western Producer 17 Jul. 2002.
18) Susan C. Kahler, “Raising Contented Cattle Makes Welfare, Production Sense,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218 (2001): 182-6.
19) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Safety of Veal, From Farm to Table,” May 2005.
20) John M. Smith, “Raising Dairy Veal,” Ohio State University, information adapted from the Guide for the Care and Production of Veal Calves, 4th ed., 1993, American Veal Association, Inc.
21) The European Food Information Council, “Chymosin and Cheese Making,” 2003.
22) Marla Cone, “State Dairy Farms Try to Clean Up Their Act,” Los Angeles Times 28 Apr. 1998.
23) M. Jenkins and D.D. Bowman, “Viability of Pathogens in the Environment,” Pathogens in the Environment Workshop Proceedings (Kansas City, Mo.: 23-25 Feb. 2004).
24) James Owen, “California Cows Fail Latest Emissions Test,” National Geographic News 16 Aug. 2005.
25) Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa, “Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997,” Statistical Bulletin Number 973, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997.
26) Rick Grant, “Water Quality and Requirements for Dairy Cattle,” NebGuide, Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1996.
27) Ontario Farm Animal Council, “Beef Cattle Farming in Ontario,” 2005.
28) American Gastroenterological Association, “American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement: Guidelines for the Evaluation of Food Allergies,” Gastroenterology 120 (2001): 1023-5.
29) National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse, “Lactose Intolerance,” National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Mar. 2003.
30) Courtney Taylor, “Got Milk (Intolerance)? Digestive Malady Affects 30-50 Million,” The Clarion-Ledger 1 Aug. 2003.
31) “Milk Protein May Play Role in Mental Disorders,” Reuters Health, 1 Apr. 1999.
32) Severin Carrell, “Milk Causes ‘Serious Illness for 7M Britons.’ Scientists Say Undetected Lactose Intolerance Is to Blame for Chronic Fatigue, Arthritis, and Bowel Problems,” The Independent 22 Jun. 2003.
33) Karpf.
34) D. Feskanich et al., “Milk, Dietary Calcium, and Bone Fractures in Women: A 12-Year Prospective Study,” American Journal of Public Health, 87 (1997) 992-97.
35) Karpf.
36) U.S. National Library and the National Institutes of Health, “Kwashiorkor,” Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia, 13 Jun. 2006.
37) Gary C. Curhan et al., “A Prospective Study of Dietary Calcium and Other Nutrients and the Risk of Symptomatic Kidney Stones,” The New England Journal of Medicine 328 (1993): 833-8.
38) Kathleen M. Stadler, “The Diet and Cancer Connection,” Virginia Tech, Nov. 1997.
39) Karpf.

It’s obvious now: Severe damage is caused by humanity’s penchant for treating the planet as our storehouse, and all living beings as our personal stock. As public awareness grows, companies sense a need to adjust. But they’ve managed, perversely, to use the need for change as a means to avoid it. Thus the rise of “greenwashing” - the appearance of cultivating ecological awareness in hopes of getting a higher profile for whatever they happen to be selling us.

Harrogate Spa, a bottled water company, says it will sell its water in lighter bottles to save plastic - avoiding the issue that we might reconsider our love for water in plastic altogether. Boeing is taking orders for what some call “green aircraft,” as though we could keep flying while the profit-driven aircraft industry solves, or at least ameliorates, the ecological damage.

Ranchers, too, are learning public relations techniques.

We know animal agribusiness plays a major role in global warming, and the resultant refugee emergencies and mass extinctions. Surely this means animal advocates are approaching their heyday as political leaders for our time. After all, who better suited to advise a concerned public on shifting our culture away from its current reliance on meat and dairy products?

Alas. Mainstream advocates aren’t taking the cue. On the contrary, they’ve made themselves a party to a new and ominous form of greenwashing. Allowing supposedly kinder, gentler animal farms to appear attractive, they have invented a new PR trend. One words fits: hogwashing.¹

British and U.S. pig breeders are phasing out their smallest crates as they wrap their bacon and sausages in packaging that tells us how decent they are; and Waitrose, one of Britain’s major grocery chains, touts its milk as benefiting wildlife.² Whole Foods Market boasts of concocting a non-profit “Animal Compassion Foundation” - and now presents sales of animal flesh as tantamount to a charitable undertaking, with the endorsement, no less, of 17 animal-advocacy groups. Similarly, advocates are promoting the use of “cage-free” eggs (a technically undefined term, usually meaning “expensive”) everywhere from the Google corporation to your local school. The eggs are so popular now that there’s reportedly a national shortage.

Ice cream maker Ben and Jerry’s drew plenty of hype as the first major food manufacturer to announce it would (in a few years, anyway) use only “cage-free” eggs. At the same time, many chicken farmers say that popularizing the cage-free idea will likely mean crowding thousands of hens on shed floors, possibly leading to hunger, even cannibalism. Advocates may prefer to picture a victorious step to animal nirvana; yet all the while, plenty of animal-friendly companies produce desserts with no eggs - and, for that matter, no milk. The last thing such ethics-based firms need is competition from pious dairy vendors endorsed by animal advocates.

Then there’s Niman Ranch. This outfit exhorts us to “[s]erve with pride the world’s finest natural beef, pork and lamb” and had the audacity to show up and speak at a gathering called “Taking Action for Animals 2007.” Billed as the largest national conference of the animal-protection movement, Taking Action exemplified the trend to restyle agribusinesses as animal-welfare societies when “approved” purveyors of animal flesh held the microphone. A charitable organization called the Animal Welfare Institute evidently paid $10,000 to present this infomercial.³

In short, hogwashing offers the customer a chance to eat animals and advocate for them in the same bite. It need not mean people are eating less of the older, unholier products. Unsure if this trend is boosting the industry? Consider this: Wolfgang Puck’s branding consultant introduced the celebrity chef to the president of the world’s wealthiest animal charity.⁴ The branding expert, who formerly ran Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, saw animal husbandry as the key to a profile boost for Puck. Within a year, Puck unveiled a new handling plan for the animals who will wind up braised with a side of sautéed Spätzle.

Ultimate Betrayal

Viewing animals as commodities, even well-handled commodities, isn’t animal protection. The ultimate betrayal of an animal is especially stark after the being has been treated almost like a pet (like the animals at Niman Ranch, who, we’re told, are walked into slaughter by someone who knew them by name).⁵ To take animals’ interests seriously is to opt out of animal agribusiness.

When animal advocates acquire too much “maturation and sophistication” for that, they’re praised by the mainstream media for gaining “influence”⁶ - praised, that is, for accepting their culture’s corporate values so well. “Instead of telling it like it is, we’re learning to present things in a more moderate way,” one farm rescue activist told the New York Times. So only foie gras is off-limits (for now; an award-winning “ethical” foie gras is on the way). Every other animal product, it seems, is acceptable, under the “mature” advocates’ guidance. Even veal can pass these days - yes, there’s an uncrated version of little dead cows, as Wolfgang Puck was quick to ascertain, and activists now praise Puck for renouncing cruel veal producers.

Granted, “telling it like it is” won’t give you instant popularity. For the authoritative remark on that, the New York Times quotes the CEO of a cattle ranchers’ group who declares that people opposing meat are “so off the wall” no one pays attention to them. Unfortunately, when mainstream advocacy groups seek wealth and easy public acceptance at the expense of core values, they too consider anyone committed to those values as inconvenient.

Here, then, is an inconvenient truth: While some advocates play footsie with wealthy steakhouse owners, ice cream vendors and ranchers, the annihilation of the world’s free animals - caused largely by the dairies and ranches of the world - runs out of control. Wouldn’t a true animal-protection movement consistently support work that attempts to conserve water and wilderness and avoid boosting that which deforests and pollutes it? Another popular animal protection group has called Burger King’s “preferential option to chicken plants that slaughter animals in a controlled atmosphere” (that means slaughterhouses that contain gas chambers) “praiseworthy.” Gee. Wouldn’t a true animal-protection movement promote, say, juice bars?

Ah, but roughly 97% of the potential donors to animal charities eat chickens.⁷ Thus, few organized groups choose to risk their growth potential as the world’s forests are cut down for animal farms and animal feed. It’s easier for the heads of charities to maintain that a return to something like the old family farm will restore an “ethic” to our relationship with the planet and its life. And that’s how Niman Ranch managed to style itself as “taking action for animals.”

Setting a Precedent

Environmentalists rightly warn that the chemicals and pathogens which plague mechanized farms can also contaminate soil, water, animal products, and our own bodies. But ecological problems aren’t limited to high-volume producers. A cow on a pasture is still a cow, needing plenty of water and food - and somewhere to eliminate it all. All forms of animal agribusiness demand large quantities of fossil fuels and generate a potent mix of greenhouse gases. The free-range movement just spreads it around more. Nevertheless, some who are vegetarian for reasons of conscience or politics are “beginning to take that activism and shift it towards eating sustainable meat,” Reuters recently declared, quoting a chef who avoided meat for 20 years but now thinks the “grass-fed movement is the new vegetarianism.”

Such bizarre statements can easily find their way into print, given our culture’s traditional willingness to maintain our life-or-death authority over other animals. The least convenient truth of all? We must question our own authority if we would heal our relationship with our planet. We must learn reverence for life before life as we know it is gone.

Our present course is expected to extinguish half of all plant and animal species by 2100, according to biologist Edward O. Wilson. Even as you read this, free-living animals are being wiped out for companies such as Niman Ranch, Wolfgang’s Steakhouse, and Whole Foods Market. Their habitat will be converted to hold living commodities, scheduled to die in a place where human workers are driven to perform dozens of soulless acts throughout the hours of their days.

And now that biofuels, along with animal feed, vie for space with food crops, we’re headed for a serious food shortage. This crisis will be exacerbated as the effects of climate change hinder crop growth, leading to riots and political instability. Given all this, what kind of precedent do activists in well-off regions set? Imagine what the planet would look like if everybody ate as much meat and dairy as North Americans.

Indeed, within just nine years, people in developing economies will expectedly eat 30% more cowflesh, 50% more pig meat and 25% more domesticated birds. Hogflesh and animal fats in general make up a quarter of the average caloric intake in China, compared to just 6% two decades ago.⁸ China’s now the world’s third dairy producer, and that’s a population that has long considered dairy products distasteful. Although research has linked the switch to a Western diet with heightened breast cancer risk, Xinran, author of What the Chinese Don’t Eat, says the “dairification” of China may involve admiration for Western customs. Even India, with its substantial vegetarian population, has seen chicken consumption nearly double since 2000. What appears to market analysts as an economic-development success story is actually a strain on our grain crops, Newsweek has acknowledged, because seven kilograms of feed go into every kilogram of cattle flesh.

We the people of the already affluent world, who have been able to make time for activism, ought to provide rational advocacy models, in which the point is not to accept animal use. Excellent models are available, from community gardens and co-operative vegan-organic farming projects to educational and culinary fairs exemplified by the tremendously popular London Vegan Festival.

Last year, the University of Chicago News Office announced the work of assistant professors Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin - work that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization soon accepted as a key study - with the headline “Vegan Diets Healthier for Planet, People Than Meat Diets.” These researchers have shown how vegans spare the atmosphere about a ton and a half of greenhouse gases per person per year, compared to omnivores eating the same number of calories. The university press office distributed its release accompanied by photos of the two scientists preparing fruit and vegetable salads on a kitchen-style countertop amidst their bookshelves - offering an inspiration to others to put conscientious culinary interests right in the middle of their work and thinking. Notably, Eshel was once a cattle farmer, but now cultivates an organic vegetable farm. Everyday activism like this will start people thinking that the fertile plains of North America, and the rain forests to the South, should be reclaimed from the feedlots and the vast monocultures of corn and soybean feed crops. As demand wanes and ranches are phased out, the pressure we exert on populations of free-living horses and burros, elk and bison, and the big carnivores too, will begin to ebb, while we cultivate something we’ve long missed: a feeling of living harmoniously with the rest of our biocommunity.

How tragic if we fail to see the opportunity. How tragic if the up-and-coming activists of China and elsewhere come to see animal advocacy as purporting to treat commodified cows humanely. Worldwide, the space used by six-point-six billion humans is vastly expanded as animals are bred into existence to be food. There is nothing sustainable, let alone kind, about it. So let us stop fantasizing and get to the point. What animal agribusiness is selling, we don’t need.

1. James LaVeck, in “Compassion for Sale?” (Satya, September 2006), defined “hogwashing” as “the practice of generating the public appearance of having compassion for animals while continuing to kill millions of them for profit.” #
2. Stonyfield Farm has partnered with various non-profits, beginning with Jane Goodall. Using packaging that described African habitats and animals, the company assured children they could be “planet protectors” by caring for the environment - presumably, in part, through Stonyfields’s dairy products. #
3. According to the website of “Taking Action for Animals 2007, the largest national conference of the animal protection movement,” sponsors of $10,000 and above received the “[o]pportunity to organize one event or conference session” as well as two “premium exhibit spaces at Conference.” #
4. See Kim Severson, “Bringing Oinks and Moos Into the Food Debate,” New York Times and International Herald Tribune, July 25, 2007. #
5. Nicolette Hahn Niman, Taking Action for Animals, Washington, D.C. (July 2007) (audio on file with author). #
6. See “Bringing Oinks and Moos Into the Food Debate” (note 4 above). #
7. A series of surveys by the US-based Vegetarian Resource Group shows between two and three percent of respondents consistently avoid eating flesh products, and about 1.4 percent of the total population is vegan, avoiding all animal products, including eggs and dairy. #
8. “Revenge of the Pork,” China Economic Review, July 2007. #

Lee Hall is legal director for Friends of Animals, an animal-rights advocacy group founded in New York in 1957. Lee can be reached at: leehall@friendsofanimals.org. Read other articles by Lee, or visit Lee’s website.

Reprinted from Dissident Voice.

Animal Products Lead to Heart Disease
Heart disease is the number one health problem in the United States, accounting for more than a million heart attacks and a half million deaths every year.(2) Because we now know what causes heart attacks, we can prevent them. In many studies, researchers have found that higher levels of cholesterol are linked to a greater risk of having a heart attack. For every 1 percent increase in the amount of cholesterol in your blood, there is a 2 percent increase in your risk of having a heart attack; conversely, every 1 percent reduction in your cholesterol level reduces your risk by 2 percent.(3)

Thanks to the dedicated efforts of the meat, dairy, and egg industries, many Americans still believe that animal products are necessary for good health. One of the largest studies on lifestyle and health found that heart disease mortality rates for lacto-ovo vegetarian males was only one-third that of meat-eating men.(4) The British Medical Journal published findings from a study concluding that lifelong vegans have a 57 percent reduced risk of death from heart disease.(5)

Plant foods contain no cholesterol, whereas meat, eggs, and dairy products contain large amounts of cholesterol, saturated fats, and concentrated protein-all harmful substances. Also, the high fiber content of a vegetarian diet (meat, dairy products, and eggs are devoid of fiber) helps “wash away” excess cholesterol in your digestive tract.

A vegetarian diet can even reverse damage already done. When Dr. Dean Ornish put patients with coronary artery disease on a low-fat vegetarian diet combined with moderate exercise and relaxation techniques, he found that they reversed the buildup of plaque in their arteries.(6)

Cancer’s Connection to Animal Products
The number one recommendation in the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) Guidelines on Nutrition for Cancer Prevention is to eat a diet “with an emphasis on plant sources.”(7) Researchers have found that vegetarians are between 25 and 50 percent less likely to suffer from cancer, even after controlling for other factors, such as smoking.(8) A recent study by the ACS found that people who ate 3 ounces of meat a day were 30 to 40 percent more likely to develop colon cancer.(9) Researchers for the ACS have also found that while plant foods lower men’s risk of prostate cancer, eating meat raises their risk.(10) Researchers from Yale University report that meat-based diets can cause cancers of the stomach and esophagus, as well as lymphoma (cancer of the lymphatic system).(11,12) Scientists have also found that people who regularly chow down on hot dogs, sausages, or other processed or cured meat suffer from a 70 percent increase in pancreatic cancer rates.(13)
Meat Can Be Poisonous
In addition to causing heart disease and cancer, animal products also contain harmful contaminants-including bacteria, arsenic, dioxins, and mercury-that can affect our health both in the short and long terms.

Every year in the U.S., there are 75 million cases of food poisoning, and 5,000 of these cases are fatal.(14) The overuse of antibiotics in factory farms has caused many of the bacteria found on animal flesh to become antibiotic-resistant. Scientists at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health recently reported that 96 percent of Tyson chicken flesh is contaminated with dangerous antibiotic-resistant campylobacter bacteria.(15) In a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study, researchers found that 66 percent of beef samples were contaminated with super-bugs resistant to antibiotics.(16) A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office warns, “Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been transferred from animals to humans, and many of the studies we reviewed found that this transference poses significant risks for human health.”(17)

It is not uncommon for farmers to lace chicken feed with arsenic to kill parasites, and some of the arsenic stays in the animals’ flesh. One USDA study concluded, “Eating 2 ounces of chicken per day-the equivalent of a third to a half of a boneless breast-exposes a consumer to 3 to 5 micrograms of inorganic arsenic, the element’s most toxic form.”(18) Daily exposure to low doses of arsenic can cause cancer and other ailments in humans.(19)

Fish flesh is also not a healthy food. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), residual industrial compounds that can be found in the environment, have caused cancer in animals and skin problems and liver damage in humans.(20) Fish flesh has been found to harbor levels of PCBs thousands of times higher than those in the water in which they live.(21) Researchers at the University of Illinois found that fish-eaters with high levels of PCBs in their blood had difficulty recalling information that they had learned just 30 minutes earlier.(22) Fish also accumulate methylmercury in their bodies, and pregnant women and children have been cautioned not to eat fish that may contain high levels of this toxic substance.(23)

Factory Farming Hurts Animals
Animals are much more intelligent and complex than most people realize, and scientists are providing more and more evidence of this all the time.

According to researchers, cows enjoy mental challenges and feel excitement when they use their intellect to overcome an obstacle. Dr. Donald Broom, a professor at Cambridge University, says that when cows figure out a solution to a problem, “The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment.”(24) Scientists now know that pigs have the cognitive skills of 3-year-old human children.(25) Biologists wrote in Fish and Fisheries that fish are “steeped in social intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation, punishment and reconciliation, exhibiting stable cultural traditions, and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food.”(26) Chickens form friendships and social hierarchies, recognize one another, develop a pecking order, and even have cultural knowledge that is passed between generations.(27)

Nearly all the animals raised for food in America today spend their lives in factory farms. These animals, who feel pain and fear just as the dogs and cats who share our homes do, are separated from their families and crammed by the thousands into filthy warehouses. They are mutilated without the use of painkillers and deprived of everything that is natural to them-they won’t be permitted to see the sun or breathe fresh air until the day when they are forced onto trucks bound for the slaughterhouse. On the killing floor, many animals are completely conscious and struggling to escape while their throats are cut-and some are still conscious while their bodies are hacked apart or when they are dunked into tanks of scalding-hot water.

Factory Farming Hurts Our Planet
Raising animals for food requires massive amounts of resources. Of all the agricultural land in the U.S., 80 percent is used to raise animals for food and to grow the grain to feed them-that’s almost half the total land mass of the lower 48 states.(28) Chickens, pigs, cattle, and other animals raised for food are the primary consumers of half the water in the U.S.(29)

Each day, factory farms produce billions of pounds of manure, which ends up in lakes, rivers, and drinking water. Farmed animals produce about 130 times as much excrement as does the entire human population of the United States-87,000 pounds of waste per second!(30,31) A California study found that a single dairy cow “emits 19.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per year, making dairies the largest source of the smog-making gas, surpassing trucks and passenger cars.”(32)

What You Can Do

• Include high-fiber foods in your diet. Whole-wheat bread, brown rice, oats, flax seeds, and vegetables supply fiber, which helps lower cholesterol.
• Avoid dairy products; they contain cholesterol and saturated fats. Calcium can be obtained from beans, broccoli, sesame seeds, and green, leafy vegetables.
• Visit VegCooking.com for delicious eggless, nondairy vegetarian recipes.

• Call 1-888-VEG-FOOD or visit GoVeg.com for a free vegetarian starter kit.References

1) The American Dietetic Association, “Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103 (2003): 748-65.
2) American Heart Association, “Heart Attack and Angina Statistics,” 3 Oct. 2003.     

3) Neal Barnard, Food for Life (New York: Harmony Books, 1993) 34.
4) R.L. Phillips et al., “Coronary Heart Disease Mortality Among Seventh-Day Adventists With Differing Dietary Habits: A Preliminary Report,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 31 (1978): S191-8.
5) M. Thorogood et al., “Plasma Lipids and Lipoproteins in Groups With Different Dietary Practices Within Britain,” British Medical Journal 295 (1987): 351-3.
6) Dean Ornish et al., “Can Lifestyle Changes Reverse Coronary Heart Disease?” The Lancet 336 (1990): 624-6.
7) American Cancer Society, “Cancer Prevention and Early Detection: Facts and Figures, 2004,” 2004.
J. Chang-Claude et al., “Mortality Pattern of German Vegetarians After 11 Years of Follow-Up,” Epidemiology 3 (1992): 389-91.
9) Jessica Heslam, “Don’t Have a Cow, Man: Docs: Meat Hikes Cancer Risk by up to 50 Percent,” Boston Herald 12 Jan. 2005.
10) American Cancer Society, Inc., “‘Good’ Fat Linked to Lower Prostate Cancer Risk,” 29 Sep. 1999.
11) Yale University, “Animal-Based Nutrients Linked With Higher Risk of Stomach and Esophageal Cancers,” news release, 15 Oct. 2001.
12) Daniel DeNoon, “Diet Linked to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Lots of Meat, Saturated Fat, Dairy May Raise Risk,” WebMD Medical News 9 Mar. 2004.
13) “Processed Meat May Cause Pancreatic Cancer,” Xinhua News 22 Apr. 2005.
14) Reuters, “CSPI: Seafood, Eggs Biggest Causes of Food Poisoning in U.S.,” CNN.com 7 Aug. 2000.
15) Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Drug-Resistant Bacteria on Poultry Products Differ by Brand,” Johns Hopkins Public Health News Center 16 Mar. 2005.
16) “Drug-Resistant Bacteria Found in U.S. Meat,” Reuters Medical News, 24 May 2001.
17) Dave DeWitte, “Report Urges USDA to Accelerate Study of Livestock Antibiotic Risks for Humans,” The Gazette 26 May 2004.
18) Dennis O’Brien, “Arsenic Used in Chicken Feed May Pose Threat,” The Baltimore Sun 4 May 2004.
19) O’Brien.
20) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “ToxFAQs for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)” 16 Sep. 2003.
21) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
22) Susan Schantz et al., “Impairments of Memory and Learning in Older Adults Exposed to Polychlorinated Biphenyls via Consumption of Great Lakes Fish,” Environmental Health Perspectives June 2001.
23) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish,” brochure, Mar. 2004.
24) Jonathan Leake, “Cows Hold Grudges, Say Scientists,” The Australian 28 Feb. 2005.
25) “New Slant on Chump Chops,” Cambridge Daily News 29 Mar. 2002.
26) “Scientists Highlight Fish ‘Intelligence,’” BBC News, 31 Aug. 2003.
27) Valerie Elliott, “Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?” Times Online 18 Mar. 2005.
28) Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa, “Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997″ Statistical Bulletin No. 973, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997.
29) Bill McKibben, “Taking the Pulse of the Planet,” Audubon Nov. 1999.
30) Ed Ayres, “Will We Still Eat Meat?” Time 8 Nov. 1999.
31) U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National Problem,” Dec. 1997.
32) Jennifer M. Fitzenberger, “Dairies Gear Up for Fight Over Air,” Fresno Bee 2 Aug. 2005.

(NaturalNews) The recall of 143 million pounds of beef processed over the past two years is the largest meat recall in the history of the world. The USDA had no choice following an animal group’s release of videotape of “downer” cows being dragged across filthy floors and pushed around by a fork lift, before joining their healthier brethren on the hamburger highway. Since we all agree that the primary responsibility of the USDA is food safety, the question is, where were the USDA inspectors? The answer may be that for several years, the top priority at the USDA has not been food safety, but the creation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

What is NAIS?

Formulated under the Patriot Act and therefore with no legislative review or input of the people, NAIS is a government program originally designed to give US beef producers help in getting their products into the export markets, as well as protection from liability involving those products.

Often labeled “no chicken left behind”, the program has grown to include all livestock species, including cattle, bison, deer, elk, llamas, alpacas, horses, donkeys, mules, goats, sheep, swine, all poultry species, and fish. Owners are required at their expense to electronically, and with geo-satellite coordinates, tag each group or groups of animals and report within 24 hours to a data base: animal births, deaths, ownership transfers, and animal ingress and egress from the owner’s land.

Under this system, animal owners who want to sell or take their animals off their property are also required to register their land with the USDA, thus putting their property under federal jurisdiction.

Of course, the benefit is to the big factory farms who clearly do need some type of regulation. They will do single ID’s for large groups of animals. Small farmers, pet owners and homesteaders will have to tag and track every single animal individually.

Under NAIS, there are no exceptions. Even small farms that sell directly to local consumers will be required to pay the fees and file paperwork on each of their animals. Homesteaders who raise their own meat and grandma with her one egg hen will also have to register their homes as ‘farm premises’ and obtain a Premise ID, as well as tagging each animal.

The animal tracking, logging and reporting components of NAIS are scheduled to become mandatory nationwide in January, 2009. Strict enforcement involving fines, inspections of properties and confiscation or redistribution of livestock can be done by the USDA or state government without trial or legal hearings and with no compensation to the owner of the animals. Failure to register your home or farm with a Premise ID already faces a $1,000 fine in some states. This is in violation of the Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Nearly $150 million of taxpayer money as been spent on promoting NAIS, money that could have been spent on more inspectors to oversee meat processing plants. Instead, NAIS money has been used to influence non-government organizations into a public/private partnership to promote the NAIS. The Future Farmers of America and the 4H Club received large sums to encourage their parents to quickly register their property into the program.

NAIS and Food Safety

NAIS does nothing to prevent or arrest disease or contamination in the food supply. The initiative is not intended for this purpose. The goal of NAIS is to provide a 48 hour trace back to the farm of origin in the case of problems, a requirement for export to foreign markets. NAIS expands corporate profits, not consumer safety. The 48 hour trace back time that follows any problem detection could mean weeks or months have elapsed since any problem would actually have occurred.

Contamination of the food generally happens after the food leaves the farm. Many examples of factory contaminated food fill the news. And if the problem is not discovered at the factory but later, at the consumer level, there is a recall. The systems are already in place to handle this type of problem.

As to disease, meat sold in stores and restaurants is supposedly USDA inspected during slaughter and processing. The reality is that large numbers of recalls show us that meat from big commercial producers may not have been properly inspected because there are not enough inspectors, and because priorities lie elsewhere.

NAIS does nothing to halt the spread of Mad Cow Disease, a disease believed to be caused by the practice of grinding up old cows and adding them to cow feed. This practice is banned, and it is the job of the USDA to enforce this ban.

NAIS cannot help prevent the feared Avian Flu which is spread by wild birds.

Had the NAIS system been fully in place, it would not have prevented the “downer” cows in California from getting into the food supply. Nor would it have prevented any of the other meat recalls in recent years. Only a more efficient USDA inspection program can improve food safety.

Who Benefits and Who Loses From NAIS?

Today’s NAIS is an outgrowth of international agreements brought to the USDA by the National Institute of Animal Agriculture, a not-for-profit organization consisting of large meat packers, manufacturers of animal tags and tag-reading equipment, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. These are the organizations benefiting financially from the NAIS. Farmers, ranchers, and producers who must pay for this program were not invited to participate in its development.

The tag and reader manufacturers anticipate windfall profits from NAIS. State Departments of Agriculture are also slated to benefit. And certainly this is a full employment act for the USDA.

Animal owners who have to pay the bill for all this are being urged to sign up before NAIS becomes law in their states. Early sign up is billed as a patriotic act. To encourage early signing, animals cannot be shown at state fairs unless their premises are registered in the NAIS. Breed associations are being encouraged to withhold registration of animals for people not first registered with NAIS. There are reports that animals have been slaughtered by USDA inspectors on small farms where the owners resist registration.

Agri-business is the clear winner under NAIS. The prize is expanded export markets, and legal liability protection at minimal cost. Small farmers will be forced out of business due to the additional fees and paperwork, resulting in market share gain, bigger monopolies, and higher profits for the corporations. Anyone wishing to raise his own, better quality food will face the obstacles of paperwork and regulation.

NAIS is going to be expensive and guess who will pay for it in higher food prices? You!

About the author

Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using “alternative” treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

Reprinted from Natural News.

Organized 25 years ago by a group of largely Adventist health professionals, the Interna