DDI-Meat DA

Berthiaume/Quinn 2009
Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig
Meat
Meat.........................................................................................................................................................................1 Strategy....................................................................................................................................................................2 1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................3 1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................4 Production Low .......................................................................................................................................................5 Production Low .......................................................................................................................................................6 Production Low- Sustained......................................................................................................................................7 Production Slowing .................................................................................................................................................8 Consumption will Decline.......................................................................................................................................9 Consumption Low .................................................................................................................................................10 Poverty Decline=Beef Demand ............................................................................................................................11 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................................................12 CO2 emissions.......................................................................................................................................................13 CO2 impacts...........................................................................................................................................................14 Methane Emissions ...............................................................................................................................................15 Methane Impacts....................................................................................................................................................16 Nitrous Oxide ........................................................................................................................................................17 Deforestation .........................................................................................................................................................18 Deforestation Impacts............................................................................................................................................19 Soil Erosion ...........................................................................................................................................................20 Soil Erosion Impacts .............................................................................................................................................21 Dead Zones ...........................................................................................................................................................22 Water Pollution .....................................................................................................................................................23 Ogallala Aquifer ....................................................................................................................................................24 Ogallala Aquifer Impacts.......................................................................................................................................25 Air Pollution...........................................................................................................................................................25 Air Pollution Impacts.............................................................................................................................................27 ...............................................................................................................................................................................27 Health Impacts.......................................................................................................................................................28 Water Scarcity .......................................................................................................................................................29 Food Scarcity ........................................................................................................................................................30 Food Scarcity ........................................................................................................................................................31 Pathogen Transfer..................................................................................................................................................32 Infectious Disease..................................................................................................................................................33 Infectious Disease Impacts....................................................................................................................................34 Food Borne Illness ................................................................................................................................................35 Antibiotic Resistance.............................................................................................................................................36 Antibiotic Extensions ............................................................................................................................................37 Antibiotic Extensions ............................................................................................................................................38 AFF STUFF ..........................................................................................................................................................39 Consumption High ................................................................................................................................................39 Consumption Growing...........................................................................................................................................40
moo
Strategy This is a very easy disad, which is basically an impact turn to the idea that poverty reduction is good. When you decrease poverty, put more money in the hands of more people. This leads to an increase in the amount of beef purchased. The basic laws of economics dictate that increased demand leads to increased production. Beef production is bad. The 1NC impact scenario is antibiotic resistance, but there are about 15 other impact scenarios in the rest of the file. Some of them have terminal impacts attached, some you can just use if they interact well with the case.
This is a very self explanatory disad, and it works well because it is actually true. You might want to consider vegetarianism after reading it.
moo
1NC
The weak economy is causing decreases in beef consumption Mintert, Professor @ KSTATE, 2009
James Mintert, Professor in the department of agriculture at kstate, January 2009 Beef Demand Drivers Kansas State University http://www.beefboard.org/news/files/factsheets/Beef_Demand_Drivers_January_2009.pdf
Looking ahead, weakness in the U.S. macroeconomic outlook for 2009 suggests that a decline in per capita consumer income can be expected. Moreover, the impact of weaker consumer income is expected to be compounded by consumers desire to increase savings in response to uncertainty and risk present in the financial and real estate markets. An increase in consumer savings means consumption expenditures will decline even more rapidly than income and, given the importance of consumer expenditures, a decline in U.S. retail beef demand is likely during 2009. Longer term, it is unlikely that domestic beef demand will rebound until the U.S. economy strengthens and consumers regain enough confidence to spend more of their income. Since the beef industry can do little to dampen the industry-wide
effect of this macroeconomic demand determinant, it will be important to focus resources in areas where noticeable impacts are possible
Beef Demand is directly correlated to US consumer wealth- as poverty declines, beef consumption increases Mintert, Professor @ KSTATE, 2009
Consumer income increased steadily from the early 1980s through 2007, averaging about 6 percent compound annual growth. Personal consumption expenditures grew even more rapidly than income during this time
as consumers consistently reduced their personal savings rate (Figure 1). In the early 1980s, personal savings ranged from about 8 to 12 percent of disposable income, but the savings rate declined steadily and by 2007 averaged less than 1 percent. This is important because it reveals that consumers were allocating nearly all of their income to living
expenses with little money left for savings by late 2007, just as the U.S. economy was entering a recession. Demand model results reveal beef demand is very responsive to changes in consumer expenditures on goods and services. On average, a 1 percent increase in U.S. consumer total expenditures results in a 0.9 percent increase in the quantity of beef demanded. Results indicate that from 1982 through
2007, beef demand benefitted from increases in consumer incomes and from consumer willingness to increase consumption expenditures even more rapidly than income was increasing. In other words, the beef demand decline experienced
from 1980 through 1998 would have been even more severe if incomes were not growing and consumers were not reducing personal savings rates during this time. Higher demand will lead to increased beef production Mintert, Professor @ KSTATE, 2009
Large shifts in domestic beef demand have had substantial impacts on the beef industry. Before the late 1970s, growth in the U.S. economy and rising consumer incomes contributed to beef demand increasing for a sustained period. In response to growing product demand, the beef industry increased in size. However, starting about 1980, domestic retail beef demand weakened and subsequently declined every year through 1998. The long-run decline in retail beef demand contributed to a reduction in cattle industry size, particularly in relation to competing meat sectors such as poultry and pork. In 1999, following nearly 20 consecutive
years of decline, domestic beef demand began to strengthen. From the late 1990s through 2004, the all fresh domestic retail beef demand index increased from a low of 76 to a peak of 92, before weakening again from 2005 through 2008.
moo
1NC
Livestock industry antibiotic use causes antibiotic resistance
Gilchrist 07 Mary J. Gilchrist, David B. Wallinga, George W. Beran, David G. Riley, and Peter S. Thorne, February 2007 The Potential Role of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Infectious Disease Epidemics and Antibiotic Resistance Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 313-316 Increased antibiotic resistance can be traced to the use and overuse of antibiotics. Much of that use occurs in human medicine. Health care policy and practice changes designed to minimize this phenomenon are in place in many countries, yet much more can be done. Although antibiotic overuse in animals is problematic, the magnitude of the problem is unknown. There is no national mechanism for collecting data on antibiotic use in many countries and the pharmaceutical industry treats production and sales figures as confidential business information. However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (2001) has estimated that 11.2 million kg of the antibiotics used annually in the United
States are administered to livestock as growth promoters. This compares with their estimate of 1.4 million kg for human medical use. Their estimates indicate that 87% of all antibiotic use is for animals, while 13% is for human therapeutic and nontherapeutic use. One researcher suggests lower figures for antibiotic use in growth promotion, stating that no more than 40% of antibiotics in the United States is for animals (Levy 1998). Antibiotic Resistance is the biggest threat we face as humans Sterling, Prof @European Grad school, 95
Bruce Sterling, Professor of Media and Design @ European Graduate School, February 1995 Bitter Resistance F&SF Science Column #15 http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/FSF_columns/fsf.15 At the close of this century, antibiotic resistance is one of the gravest threats that confronts the human race. It ranks in scope with overpopulation, nuclear disaster, destruction of the ozone, global warming, species extinction and massive habitat destruction. Although it gains very little attention in comparison to those other horrors, there is nothing theoretical or speculative about antibiotic resistance. The mere fact that we can't see it happening doesn't mean that it's not taking place. It is occurring, stealthily and steadily, in a world which we polluted drastically before we ever took the trouble to understand it. We have spent billions to kill bacteria but mere millions to truly comprehend them. In our arrogance, we have gravely underestimated our enemy's power and resourcefulness. Antibiotic resistance is a very real threat which is well documented and increasing at considerable speed. In its scope and its depth and the potential pain and horror of its implications, it may the greatest single menace that we human beings confront -- besides, of course, the steady increase in our own numbers. And if we don't somehow resolve our grave problems with bacteria, then bacteria may well resolve that population problem for us.
moo
Production Low
Beef Production is down Hurt, Purdue University, 8-3-09
Chris Hurt, Purdue University, August 3, 2009; Purdue Outlook, if they buy cars they will buy beef http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=335501 Consumers are beginning to feel a little better about their household budgets. If they will buy more cars, then surely they will also be willing to buy more beef. Granted, the cash for clunkers program added large incentives to buy new cars, but the willingness of consumers to pay for big ticket purchases probably means the bite of recession is beginning to ease.
The recession has cut deeply into cattle producer finances as loss of beef demand has ravaged cattle prices. So far this year, beef production has been down three percent, but finished cattle prices have been down by ten percent. Nebraska finished steers averaged only $82.70 per hundredweight so far this year compared with
$92.30 for the same period in 2008. That is nearly $10 per hundredweight lower prices with a smaller supply. Calf prices have been about $9 per hundredweight lower this year compared to last.
Cattle production down, statistics prove

Henderson, July 28 Greg Henderson, July 28 2009; Declines continue for cattle inventories, beef supplies, exports; Drovers Online; http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=5830 Cattle numbers may be declining, but lower supplies are not translating into a rally for prices. Thats because beef demand is significantly softer this year, for both domestic use and exports.USDAs semi-annual Cattle Inventory report showed a decline of 1.5 million head, totaling 101.8 million head. It was the third consecutive year of decline, and the lowest mid-year total in 37 years.Despite declining beef cow slaughter during 2009, the mid-year inventory of beef cows was 450,000 head smaller, totaling 32.2 million head. Compared with a decade ago, the nations beef cow herd is now more than 2 million head smaller.Declines in the cow herd are attributed to dry weather over much of the plains states the past year, significantly higher feed and fuels costs, and a recession that
has softened demand for beef and caused significant losses for cattle feeders.
moo
Production Low
Beef production is on the decline Maday; July 10
John Maday; July 10 2009; Feedgrain supplies up, beef lower in new report; http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp? pgID=675&ed_id=5727 The report estimates total U.S. meat production for 2009 will fall behind that of 2008, primarily because of lower beef output. Pork production was higher than expected during the second quarter, but is likely to drop off through the rest of the year. The report estimates higher broiler production during the second and third quarters, but the increases are not enough to offsets the decline in beef production.The beef-production
forecast for 2009 is based on lower expected feedlot placements and slightly lighter average carcass weights. For the longer term, the market will watch for USDAs mid-year Cattle Inventory report, to be released on July 24, which will provide an indication of breeding herd retention and the number of cattle outside feedlots. The WASDE report projects beef production for 2010 slightly lower, but total U.S. meat production higher with increases in
pork and broiler output.
Beef production down compared to last year Maday; July 27 John Maday; July 27 2009; Slaughter lags but beef prices improving; http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=5824; Drovers online Steer and heifer slaughter and beef production were down again last week, with USDA estimating a total of 595,000 head through Friday, compared with 626,000 head for the same period last year. Beef production was down proportionately, as slaughter weights, averaging 1,279 pounds, remain about the same as at this time last year.TCFA reports fed steer and heifer prices averaging about $83 per hundredweight last week. USDA reports national averages just slightly higher, with steers averaging $83.40 and
heifers $83.10. olesale beef prices gained some ground last week, with the Choice cutout on Monday averaging $138.63 per hundredweight and finishing on Friday at $142.82 per hundredweight. The weekly average was up about $4 over the previous week.
moo
Production Low- Sustained

Meat production will be low through 2011. Paul Wescott and Edwin Young February 12, 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Baseline/livestock.htm
Production adjustments in response to high grain and soybean meal prices in 2007 and 2008 continue to ripple through the livestock sector in the first several years of the projections. Additionally, demand is somewhat weakened due to the domestic recession and global economic slowdown. Thus, with producer returns squeezed in 2008 and rebounding only slightly over the next few years, total U.S. meat and poultry production declines through 2011. These production adjustments combine with strengthening meat exports to reduce domestic per capita consumption through 2012. The result is lower production at higher prices, with improving net returns providing economic incentives for moderate expansion in the sector toward the end of the projection period.
moo
Production Slowing
Agricultural production is high now but is slowing down Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm production; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health Putting Meat on the Table 2006 http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf
Animal agriculture has experienced warp speed growth over the last 50 years, with intensification resulting in an almost logarithmic increase in numbers. The availability of high-yield and inexpensive grains has
fueled this increase and allowed for continually increasing rates of growth in order to feed the burgeoning human population. However, diminished fossil fuel supplies, global climate change, declining freshwater
availability, and reduced availability of arable land all suggest that agricultural productivity gains in the next 50 years may be far less dramatic than the rates of change seen over the last 100 years.
moo
Consumption will Decline

The weak economy is causing declines in beef consumption Mintert, Professor @ KSTATE, 2009
Looking ahead, weakness in the U.S. macroeconomic outlook for 2009 suggests that a decline in per capita consumer income can be expected. Moreover, the impact of weaker consumer income is expected to be compounded by consumers desire to increase savings in response to uncertainty and risk present in the financial and real estate markets. An increase in consumer savings means consumption expenditures will decline even more rapidly than income and, given the importance of consumer expenditures, a decline in U.S. retail beef demand is likely during 2009. Longer term, it is unlikely that domestic beef demand will rebound until the U.S. economy strengthens and consumers regain enough confidence to spend more of their income. Since the beef industry can do little to dampen the industry-wide
effect of this macroeconomic demand determinant, it will be important to focus resources in areas where noticeable impacts are possible
moo
Consumption Low
Beef Consumption falling economy, job losses, are all reducing U.S. beef prices and production.
Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, USDA 2/17/2009 Wholesale cutout values have been below year-earlier levels 7 out of the last 10 weeks. This decline in values is due to a combination of factors. One factor is the inability of packers to sufficiently clear product from building inventories. Cold storage stocks have increased since midsummer 2008 as a result of reduced orders for U.S. beef in international beef markets. Seasonal consumption patterns of reduced demand for middle meats, popular for summer grilling, are also contributing to increasing cold storage stocks. Increased job losses and other aspects of current domestic economic conditions have dampened consumers willingness to dine away from home except in fast-food and casual dining establishments. This decline in eating out has resulted in a shift away from higher quality beef to lower priced beef cuts and processing beef (e.g., ground products) and a narrowing of the spread between Choice and Select cutout values. Lower prices for meat products from pork and poultry are also contributing to downward pressures on beef prices. While packers have recently enjoyed positive margins, declining supplies of fed cattle and the potential for lower retail prices are expected to squeeze packer margins.
moo
10
Poverty Decline=Beef Demand

Increased income increases meat consumption
Richard Perren Taste, Trade, and Technology December 2006 http://books.google.com/books? id=b3HOpjIMQOkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s In the nineteenth century beef was seen on both sides of the Atlantic as the leading meat in consumer demand. Over the period as a whole the increased per capita consumption of all meats was an important function of the rise in personal income levels. The strength and profitableness of the meat industry was very often measured by its relative price and, as the most expensive to produce and the most desirable to consume, beef was always the price leader. In times of depression, with low wages and high unemployment, people would turn to cheaper mutton and pig meat that is if they were still able to afford meat at all - but beef was still the first preference among Western consumers. By the 1970s beef consumption had come to symbolize the good life throughout the western world. In the United States steak had become to meat what Cadillac was to cars.21 In Europe and the United Kingdom the contrast with the enforced austerity of meat rationing in the wartime and immediate post-war years was particularly sharp. In the United States annual per-capita consumption peaked in the mid-1970s, but declined thereafter.26 Prior to that time, writers on the industry viewed future changes in the demand for beef purely in terms of its traditional determining factors, such as fluctuations in personal income levels, changes in production costs, farmers' responses to the state of the cattle cycle and possible alterations in trade policies.2 There was certainly no suggestion that producers might have to face a serious long-term fall in consumer demand for this meat.
Increasing income leads to more meat demand and livestock production. Patrick J. Catania, Chicago Board of Trade, and Peter Alonzi, Chicago Board of Trade. 1997 Commodity Trading Manual
In addition to carryover, yield, and weather, there are other significant economic conditions that affect commodity prices. There is a relationship between the livestock and grain markets. For instance, affluent consumers are more likely to eat red meat, which in turn, influences the demand for livestock. A rise in livestock numbers increases the consumption of feed, which contains large amounts of corn. This eventually decreases the supply of corn. On the other hand, the less money available to consumers, the less spent on more expensive foods like red meat.
moo
11
Environmental Impacts
Livestock Industry causes enormous environmental problems Matthews, FAO, 2006
Christopher Matthews, FAO Livestock a major http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html threat to the environment; November 26 2006
The consequences of this increased consumption are no small matter. The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, on every scale from local to global,4 according to the latest report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) about the effects of the livestock industry on the environment, entitled Livestocks Long Shadow. And they have plenty of evidence for the statement. First of all, the livestock industry is becoming a significant source of climate changing greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate change causes loss of biodiversity and extinction (Nature publishing group, January 2004, http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html)
Many plant and animal species are unlikely to survive climate change. New analyses suggest that 1537% of a sample of 1,103 land plants and animals would eventually become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050. For some of these species there will no longer be anywhere suitable to live. Others will be unable to reach places where the climate is suitable. A rapid shift to technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases, combined with carbon sequestration, could save 1520% of species from extinction. The cover shows a species in the firing line. Boyd's forest dragon, Hypsilurus boydii, is found in Queensland, Australia. About 90% of its distribution would become climatically unsuitable by 2050, on maximum climate warming scenarios.
moo
12
CO2 emissions
The livestock industry is a huge emitter of greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2 Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07
Jens Holms and Tovio Jokkala; The Livestock Industry and Climate, published by the Swedish left party; GUE NGL; http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/library/focus/meat_climate_report_en.pdf
the livestock industry is becoming a significant source of climate changing greenhouse gas emissions.When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, most people think of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. And with
First of all, respect to carbon dioxide emissions the first thing one thinks of is the burning of fossil fuels, for example in the transport sector. Even people and animals emit carbon dioxide when they exhale, but theses emissions are normally absorbed by the plant life of the planet. The simplified picture is that these emissions are part of a biological cycle, while emissions from the burning of fossil fuels creates a net increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But when it comes to the total greenhouse emissions from livestock the picture is more complicated. To begin with, even the livestock sector is a significant source of net emissions of carbon dioxide. Among other things, it has to do with the fact that forests that previously absorbed carbon dioxide have been cut down to make room for pasture and land for planting animal fodder crops. According to the report Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon, published by the World Bank in 2004, as much as 88% of deforested surfaces in the Amazon may have been
converted to pasture for livestock.5 It is calculated that about 9% of global carbon dioxide emissions from human activity originate from raising livestock, although the numbers are still uncertain.6Another factor in
this context is that the fodder crops that are grown as food for livestock are being transported ever increasing distances.
This leads to greater use of fossil fuels, which further increases carbon dioxide emissions. The agricultural sector contributes to a large percentage of US greenhouse gas emissions Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from all livestock operations account for 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding those from the transportation sector (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Agriculture accounts for 7.4% of the total US release of greenhouse gases (epa, 2007a). Animals produce greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide during the digestion process. Other greenhouse gases, primarily nitrous oxide, arise mainly from the microbial degradation of manure. Additional emissions result from degradation processes in uncovered waste lagoons and anaerobic digesters. The global warming potential of these emissions, compared to a value of one for carbon dioxide, is 62 for methane and 275 for nitrous oxide on a 20-year time horizon. The US epa Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report data for agricultural inputs are summarized below. Emission control solutions are now being examined by the epa, along with possible opportunities for carbon credits and credit trading (Jensen, 2006).
moo
13
CO2 impacts
Warming causes extinction Terry L. Deibel, professor of IR @ National War College, 2007, Foreign Affairs Strategy, Conclusion: American Foreign
Affairs Strategy Today Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet .
moo
14
Methane Emissions
Livestock industry is a huge contributer to methane emissions
Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07

Jens Holms and Tovio Jokkala; The Livestock Industry and Climate, published by the Swedish left party; GUE NGL; http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/library/focus/meat_climate_report_en.pdf Carbon dioxide is far from the only greenhouse gas. The Kyoto Protocol7 names five other significant greenhouse gases whose emissions must be lowered. Two of them are of particular interest when considering the livestock industrys environmental impact: methane and nitrous oxide. Methane (CH4) is a gas that, per unit of weight, has an effect on global warming that is 23 times stronger than that of carbon dioxide.8 In the past 200 years, the levels of methane in the atmosphere have doubled from 0.8 to 1.7 parts per million by volume . Between 35% and 40%
of global methane emissions attributable to human activity come from livestocks digestion process.9 Livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats produce significant amounts of methane via digestion.10 A single cow is estimated to produce, on average, 600 liters of methane per day. Methane is the worst greenhouse gas and it is primarily produced by the agricultural sector Mohr 06
Noam Mohr; December 2006; The McDougall http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/globalwarming.htm Newsletter; A new global warming strategy;
Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together.18 Methane is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.1 9 While atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled.20 Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. 21 In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded
as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlandsthe primary natural source of methane.22 With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planets human-induced
warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfillsbut the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture.23 Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year.24 And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. 25 About 85% of this methane is
produced in the digestive processes of livestock,26 and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane,27 the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals
worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive lagoons used to store untreated farm animal waste, 28 and already a target of environmentalists for their role as a primary source of water pollution in the U.S.29 The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products . Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), 30,31,32 we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today
moo
15
Methane Impacts
Methane Emissions cause extinction The Sun News, 2008 (Scientist uncovers methane menace Wesley Hughes, 06/07/08)
He calls it the Doomsday Scenario. Imagine alligators swimming at the North Pole. It happened once and it could happen again if Martin Kennedy's hypothesis comes true. And if Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" made you nervous, imagine something 50 times worse. If we as a society can't stop it, it could mean the end of civilization. Kennedy says, "I don't know how a nuclear power could survive if most of its population is dying." Kennedy is no nut case. He's a highly respected professor of geology at UC Riverside; and his scenario was published recently in the journal Nature. It involves something no one had paid much attention to before: methane. We in the Inland Empire are familiar with it as a byproduct of cow poop. But Kennedy's methane is no BS, cowboy. It's trapped in the permafrost
If the ice cap melts - as the Greenland ice sheet rapidly is - the methane will be released and methane is 50 times more active than carbon as a greenhouse gas, the scientist said. The Earth has 5,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide in its deposits of oil and natural gas. Big numbers. But there are 10,000 gigatons of methane under the ice sheets and in
under the ice cap in high latitudes at the top of the world. the ocean floor near the coasts. That's twice the amount of the carbon dioxide and 100 times more powerful. Methane lingers in the atmosphere for five or 10 years before oxidation converts it to carbon dioxide.
The more methane released as the ice melts, the warmer it becomes, melting more ice releasing increasingly more methane. As the ice melts, the planet loses its reflectability - the albedo effect - absorbing more of the heat from the sun
and increasing the warmth. It's like putting your hand on a white car in the hot summer sun and then putting it on a black one. "Ouch." Total meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet would deepen the oceans by 20 feet, flooding places like New York City and turning Florida into a reef. Kennedy began working on his hypothesis five years ago and his research took him back to his native Australia. There he found ancient methane seeps that could be tied to earlier global ice melts and the "Snowball Earth" of 635 million years ago. That occurred just before animal life appeared on Earth, Kennedy said, "suggesting some kind of environmental link."
The life possibly kick-started by the first methane age could be wiped out by a second. The tipping point for that phenomenon is unknown, Kennedy said. It occurred the first time when methane was loosed in a runaway feedback. The tipping point for a new methane age could occur in a decade, Kennedy said. But we are primed for it and when it occurs the world could warm at a rate of tens of degrees. "It's an abrupt mechanism," Kennedy said. "It's an entirely different climate- warming scenario. In the first global warming from carbon dioxide, the Earth didn't go through catastrophic change. "We think we are increasing the probability of abrupt climate change,"
the scientist said. "When we understand the tipping point," Kennedy said, we'll be able to better predict the climate's future in the next century." He said the Greenland ice sheet is not stable and is melting rapidly. Fourteen of the past 20 years have been the hottest in world history, Kennedy said. A methane age would wreak havoc with the climate, plant and animal life and humanity, Kennedy said. The results are unpredictable and could be catastrophic with more Hurricane Katrinas, dust bowls, monsoons, floods and famine. The scientist is director of the Global Climate and Environmental Change Program, a two-year master's degree program at UCR.
moo
16
Nitrous Oxide
Livestock industry is a major source of nitrous oxide emissions
Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07

Nitrous oxide (N2O), also called laughing gas, has an even stronger effect on climate: 296 times stronger than carbon dioxide over a hundred-year period.11 Nitrous oxide can be formed in different ways when nitrogen reacts with oxygen. Livestock production produces enormous quantities of nitrogen that can become nitrous oxide. In total, livestock account for two-thirds of all nitrous oxide emissions caused by human activity.12 Nitrogen is released from the fertilizers used on the fodder crops. It is also released from the urine and the excrement of the animals, as well as stored manure. FAO estimates that we will see a significant increase in these kinds of emissions from livestock production in the future
moo
17
Deforestation
Livestock raising is a major contributor to the destructions of the rainforest Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07
Jens Holms and Tovio Jokkala; The Livestock Industry and Climate, published by the Swedish left party; GUE NGL; http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/library/focus/meat_climate_report_en.pdf In order to produce protein-rich fodder you have to grow protein-rich crops. And that requires space; a lot of space. Today,
livestock raising takes up 30% of the earths land surface. Seventy-eight percent of the total cultivable land area (including different types of pasture land) is used in some way for raising farm animals . Of the
actual arable land, 33% is used to raise animals.16 With increased production of high-quality protein, more land has to be utilized. And the southern hemisphere is where it occurs most frequently . In Brazil, between 1965 and 1997, planting of the protein rich soybean increased by fifty times.17 Today, Brazil accounts for 26% of the worlds production of soybeans.18 The majority of Brazils soybeans is exported to Europe as animal fodder. Fields of soybeans for meat production occupy ever greater areas of Brazil. Nature is impacted negatively by the devastation of rain forest,
savannahs and other diversity-rich environments and by the spread of chemicals. In spite of the fact that the rain forests occupy only 6% of the earths land area, they have enormous significance for animal and plant life. The rain forests ability to fix carbon dioxide is, as pointed out above, an important factor in countering the greenhouse effect. Thus, indirectly, even the growing of fodder crops spurs climate change. Livestock are responsible for major deforestation Matthews, FAO, 2006
Livestock now use 30 percent of the earths entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing. Livestock industry in Brazil causes deforestation Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 5-17-8 Brazil's forest loss now linked to world food prices http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/features/article_1405101.php/Brazils_forest_loss In two states, Mato Grosso and Para, where about 70 per cent of Brazil's deforestation has taken place in recent times, the
area converted to farmland in the first quarter of this year spiked to 214 square kilometres from 77 one year ago.Although it was the rainy season, the early time of year when the chainsaws are usually less active, an area equivalent in size to 21,400 football pitches was cleared of trees between January and March, the Brazilian environmental authorities say.As previous host of the UN Biodiversity Conference, the Brazilians are likely to be apologetic about their inability to rein in the ranchers as they hand over the chairmanship to Germany at the May 19-30 event.The world food crisis has actually weakened the hand of environmentalists in Brazilian politics who are trying to conserve the untouched forests as a biodiversity treasure trove.
moo
18
Deforestation Impacts
moo
19
Soil Erosion
Growing fodder for livestock to consume leads to soil erosion Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07
Due to periods of intensive rain, the planted fields often increase the risk of soil erosion. Depleted farm soil means new areas have to be cleared to create more fields for planting.
Ruminants eat a greater amount of roughage than pigs and chickens, for example pasturage and harvested silage or hay. But
the trend is towards feeding even these animals ever greater quantities of high-value protein-rich fodder: for example, soybeans. Previously, in Europe, the livestock industry used meat and bone meal in cattle feed. This proved to be a factor in mad cow disease. The meat and bone meal has been replaced by even more soybeans on a large scale.
moo
20
Soil Erosion Impacts

Soil erosion threatens all life. Horne and McDermott 2001 (James E., PhD and Maura, The next green revolution, p 69) Conserving healthy soil by guarding it against erosion or other forces that would degrade it is the most basic step. This step has as its corollary actively building soil health, because soil used for agricultural purposes today is not as healthy as it could be. It is both less diverse and less active biologically. Without healthy topsoil, the world cannot begin to feed its billions. Although American popular culture discourse in recent years has speculated the fate of line on earth in case of alien invasion, asteroid bombardment, or rampaging killer viruses, the slow loss of quality soil is more of a threat to life on the planet than any of these scenarios.
moo
21
Dead Zones
Livestock production contributes to water contamination which creates toxic dead zones Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Agricultural runoff laden with chemicals (synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) and nutrients is suspected as a major culprit responsible for many dead zones in both inland and marine waters, affecting an
estimated 173,000 miles of US waterways (Cook, 1998). Animal farming is also estimated to account for 55% of soil and sediment erosion, and more than 30% of the nitrogen and phosphorus loading in the nations drinking water resources (Steinfeld et al., 2006). ifap facilities in high-risk areas such as floodplains are particularly vulnerable to
extreme weather events that increase the risk, and quantity, of runoff. Flood events overwhelm the storage capacity of ifap liquid manure lagoons and cause catastrophic contamination that results in very large fish kills.
moo
22
Water Pollution
Livestock Industry causes increased water contamination Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Nitrate is another important drinking water contaminant, regulated under epas Safe Drinking Water Act. Its effects on humans include diseases such as hyperthyroidism (Seffner, 1995; Tajtakova et al., 2006) and insulindependent diabetes (Kostraba et al., 1992), as well as increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomes and neurodevelopmental defects (Arbuckle et al., 1988; Burkholder et al., 2007). The US epa sets allowable limits for
nitrate of 10 mg / l in public drinking water supplies and requires tertiary treatment or amendment with groundwater before distribution (epa, 2006). The presence of agricultural chemicals in surface waters contributes to the growth
of cyanobacteria and other microorganisms that may be especially harmful to people with depressed or immature immune systems (Rao et al., 1995; Shi et al., 2004). It is also recognized that ammonia emissions from livestock contribute significantly to the eutrophication and acidification of soils and waters. Eutrophication is an excessive richness of nutrients in a body of water, mostly nitrates and phosphates from erosion and runoff of surrounding lands, that causes a dense growth of plant life and the death of animal life due to lack of oxygen. Some level of eutrophication occurs naturally, but this process can be accelerated by human activities. Acidification can put stress on species diversity in the natural environment. Reduction of ammonia emissions from cafos requires covering of manure storage tanks and reservoirs and the direct injection of controlled quantities of manure slurry into soil only during the growing season. Land application of manure during winter months or rainy weather leads to significant runoff into surface waters.
moo
23
Ogallala Aquifer
Livestock irrigation practices harm the Ogallala aquifer, compromising drinking water for the entire US Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm production; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health Putting Meat on the Table 2006 http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf Like other aspects of ifap (such as manure disposal), crop production for animal feed places enormous demand on water resources: 87% of the use of freshwater in the US is used in agriculture, primarily irrigation (Pimentel et al., 1997). For example, it takes nearly 420 gallons of water to produce one pound of grain-fed broiler chicken (Pimentel et al., 1997).
ifap operations in arid or semiarid regions are thus of particular concern because of their high water demand on the limited supply of water, much of it from aquifers that may have limited recharge capacity. The 174,000-square-mile Ogallala aquifer, for example, is a fossil aquifer that dates back to the last ice age and underlies parts of Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas . Irrigation has reduced the Ogallala by more than half, and current depletion rates exceed 3.3 feet per year of water table level (McMichael, 1993; Soule and Piper, 1992). Because the aquifers very slow recharge rate is vastly outstripped by irrigation and other human needs, the aquifer is at risk of being fully depleted, threatening not only agriculture but drinking water supplies for a huge area of the United States.
moo
24
Ogallala Aquifer Impacts

Collapse of the Ogallala aquifer will lead to the collapse of civilization The Economist 3 July 19, 2003 Irrigate and die
PRIVATISATION and dams may arouse great passion, but mispricing of water has far more serious effects. In truth, the story of water almost everywhere involves abuse, waste and even tragedy. Nor are things getting better: indeed, much of the worst damage has been wrought in the past 100 years. Water resources have been exploited with no heed either to sustainability or to the environmental consequences. And water policy has suffered from a near-total disregard for the discipline and tools of economics, especially pricing, trading and cost-benefit analysis. These failings are best illustrated by looking at irrigation for farming, which has always consumed the lion's share of available water. Irrigation catastrophes have befallen civilisations since the dawn of time. Archaeological evidence suggests that much of the Sahara was once a green and pleasant land, until depletion of groundwater turned it into desert. The Maya civilisation in Mexico is thought to have ended because of a sudden drought. In what is now Arizona, Hohokam Indians developed a remarkably sophisticated irrigation system. But too much irrigation waterlogs the ground, and when the water evaporates it leaves salts behind. Just such a lethal salinisation seems to have overtaken the Hohokam, who died out suddenly in the early 15th century. Sandra Postel, author of "Pillar of Sand", a book about irrigation, maintains that, with the single exception of Egypt, no civilisation based on irrigation has survived for long, either because the water has run out, or because of silt, or because of salinisation.Yet it is modern engineering that has made possible irrigation disasters on a massive scale. The saddest is the tale of the Aral Sea, once the world's fourth-biggest inland sea. In the 1950s Soviet planners, following Stalin's 1929 dictum that "water which is allowed to enter the sea is wasted", diverted large parts of the two rivers that feed the Aral, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, to irrigate cotton crops in the near-desert terrain of central Asia. The Aral soon started to dry up. Since 1960, it has shrunk by three-quarters in volume (see map, next page). Almost all the fish have died out; a once-thriving fishing fleet that had supported several villages has disappeared. Moreover, rapidly rising salinity has killed many crops, and salt in the air has damaged local people's health, increasing the incidence of cancers and respiratory diseases. All this for a few million tonnes of heavily subsidised cotton, produced at the insistence of a regime that collapsed more than a decade ago. The Aral Sea may never recover, though its shrinkage seems to have slowed recently.Soviet central planners are not the only culprits. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein notoriously drained the marshes of the lower Tigris and Euphrates, home of the Marsh Arabs and possibly the site of the original garden of Eden. But big water projects for agriculture have had unforeseen malign consequences in rich countries too. The history of the American west, for example, is one of overexploitation of limited water resources, mainly for the benefit of farmers, at huge cost to federal and state taxpayers and with severe environmental side-effects. Cowboys and IndiansThe classic account of water in the American west is Marc Reisner's book "Cadillac Desert". When the west was settled in the late 19th century, much of it was desert or semi-desert. But instead of encouraging settlers to adapt to this climate by, for instance, dry farming, the government decided to bring water to them. This involved building a series of gigantic dams, as well as putting in hand huge water-diversion projects, fed by dams, or by siphoning water from the Colorado and other rivers, or by tapping groundwater. The Colorado's annual flow was "allocated" among the upstream and downstream states in a 1922 compact. Not only did this account for all the water in the river, in line with the prevailing principle of not "wasting" water; because the numbers were based on several unusually wet years, it allocated more water than is normally available.The biggest water projects of the 20th century were all in California. The most gigantic of them all is the Central Valley Project, a vast system of dams, pipes and channels that supplies irrigation water to the farmers of the central valley at a tiny fraction of its cost. Together with the State Water Project that ran alongside it, this made California's agriculture into one of the most productive in the world, the backbone of the state's economy. But it also entrenched lavish subsidies and polluted the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta. The worst example is the leaching of selenium into Kesterson reservoir, where it has caused grotesque deformations in birds.Next in scale was the diversion of Colorado river water to the Imperial valley irrigation district in southern California. The Imperial valley now uses a fifth of the Colorado's water (some two-thirds of what California is entitled to take from the river), mainly to grow such thirsty crops as alfalfa, rice and cotton. Indeed, half of California's water is now used for crops that are better suited to a wet environment than to a semi-desert.Another staple of the American west is groundwater depletion. The dustbowl years of the 1930s drove many mid-western farmers off the land, but the discovery of the Ogallala, a huge underground aquifer stretching from South Dakota to west Texas, transformed agriculture's fortunes. Now, thanks to intensive pumping, the Ogallala aquifer is being depleted at a rate eight times faster than it is being replenished. It could run out before the end of this century. What will the mid-west do for water then?
Air Pollution
moo
25
Livestock Industry leads to air pollution, multiple warrants Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Air quality degradation is also a problem in and around ifap facilities because of the localized release of significant quantities of toxic gases, odorous substances, and particulates and bioaerosols that contain a variety of microorganisms and human pathogens (further discussed in the public health section of this report). These compounds arise from feed, animals, manure, and microorganisms. Highly noxious odors are associated with vapor phase chemicals and compounds adherent to particles . These agents emanate from livestock facilities, waste storage reservoirs, and manure application sites, and all can be transported aerially from ifap facilities to neighbors or neighboring communities. Some of the most objectionable compounds are
the organic acids, which include acetic acid, butyric acids, valeric acids, caproic acids, and propanoic acid; sulfurcontaining compounds such as hydrogen sulfide and dimethyl sulfide; and nitrogen-containing compounds including ammonia, methyl amines, methyl pyrazines, skatoles, and indoles. Smells associated with these compounds are described as similar to those of rotten eggs or rotting vegetables (hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl sulfide), rancid butter (butyric acids), and feces (valeric acid, skatole, indole).
moo
26
Air Pollution Impacts

Air pollution will lead to extinction Driesen 03 (David, Associate Professor, Syracuse University College of Law. J.D. Yale Law School, 1989, Fall/Spring, 10 Buff. Envt'l. L.J. 25, p. 26-8) Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that
are relevant to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs that is worth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable development's meaning for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment. Since air pollution damages both human health and the environmen t, air quality implicates both of these concerns. Lead, carbon monoxide, particulate, tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides have historically threatened urban air quality in the United States. This review will focus upon tropospheric ozone, particulate, and carbon monoxide, because these pollutants present the most widespread of the remaining urban air problems, and did so at the time of the earth summit. 6 Tropospheric ozone refers to ozone fairly near to the ground, as opposed to stratospheric ozone high in the atmosphere. The stratospheric ozone layer protects human health and the environment from ultraviolet radiation, and its depletion causes problems. By contrast, tropospheric ozone damages human health and the environment. 8 In the United States, the pollutants causing "urban" air quality problems also affect human health and the environment well beyond urban boundaries. Yet, the health problems these pollutants present remain most acute in urban and suburban areas. Ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate cause very serious public health problems that have been well recognized for a long time. Ozone forms in the atmosphere from a reaction between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. Volatile organic compounds include a large number of hazardous air pollutants. Nitrogen oxides, as discussed below, also play a role in acidifying ecosystems. Ozone damages lung tissue. It plays a role in triggering asthma attacks, sending thousands to the hospital every summer. It effects young children and people engaged in heavy exercise especially severely. Particulate pollution, or soot, consists of combinations of a wide variety of pollutants. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to formation of fine particulate, which is associated with the most serious health problems. 13 Studies link particulate to tens of thousands of annual premature deaths in the United States. Like ozone it contributes to respiratory illness, but it also seems to play a [*29] role in triggering heart attacks among the elderly. The data suggest that fine particulate, which EPA did not regulate explicitly until recently, plays a major role in these problems. 16 Health researchers have associated carbon monoxide with various types of neurological symptoms, such as visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, and difficulty in performing complex tasks. The same pollution problems causing current urban health problems also contribute to long lasting ecological problems. Ozone harms crops and trees. These harms affect ecosystems and future generations. Similarly, particulate precursors, including nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, contribute to acid rain, which is not easily reversible. To address these problems, Agenda 21 recommends the adoption of national programs to reduce health risks from air pollution, including urban air pollution. These programs are to include development of "appropriate pollution control technology . . . for the introduction of environmentally sound production processes." It calls for this development "on the basis of risk assessment and epidemiological research." It also recommends development of "air pollution control capacities in large cities emphasizing enforcement programs using monitoring networks as appropriate." A second principle, the precautionary principle, provides support for the first. As stated in the Rio Declaration, the precautionary principle means that "lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation" when "there are threats of serious or irreversible damage." Thus, lack of complete certainty about the adverse environmental and human health effects of air pollutants does not, by itself, provide a reason for tolerating them. Put differently, governments need to address air pollution on a
precautionary basis to ensure that humans can life a healthy and productive life.
moo
27
Health Impacts
Industrial food production creates a public health threat Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
As previously mentioned, one of the most serious unintended consequences of industrial food animal production ( ifap) is the growing public health threat of these types of facilities. In addition to the contribution of ifap to the major threat of antimicrobial resistance (Smith et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2007), ifap facilities can be harmful to workers, neighbors, and even those living far from the facilities through air and water pollution, and via the spread of disease. Workers in and neighbors of ifap facilities experience high levels of
respiratory problems, including asthma (Donham and Gustafson, 1982; Donham et al., 1989; Donham et al., 1995; Donham et al., 1985 a; Donham et al., 2007; Merchant et al., 2005; Mirabelli et al., 2006 a; Mirabelli et al., 2006 b; Sigurdarson and Kline, 2006; Thu, 2002). In addition, workers can serve as a bridging population, transmitting animal-borne diseases to a wider population (Myers et al., 2006; Saenz et al., 2006). A lack of appropriate treatment of enormous amounts
of waste may result in contamination of nearby waters with harmful levels of nutrients and toxins, as well as bacteria, fungi, and viruses (Nolan and Hitt, 2006; Peak et al., 2007), all of which can affect the health of people both near and far from ifap facilities
moo
28
Water Scarcity
Livestock production increases the pressure on water resources Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07
In many parts of the world water is scarce. With the spread of western meat-product consumption patterns to those who can afford to emulate them in the poor parts of the world, pressure on water resources is increased even more. Producing a kilo of beef requires a total of approximately 15,000 liters of water; a kilo of chicken takes 3,5006,000 liters. By comparison, it takes only about 450 liters to produce a kilo of corn.
The livestock industry is a major cause of water scarcity and water pollution Matthews, FAO, 2006
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earths increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed. Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of
phosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.
moo
29
Food Scarcity
The production of livestock leads to food scarcity and hunger Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07
Poor people in many parts of the world today cannot afford to buy the food available on the market . The question of food supply is therefore a question of fairness. What will the situation be in 50 years? Does the production of animal products threaten peoples future chances to avoid hunger?There is a risk of significant competition for food in the world of the future, with survival problems as a result, says social scientist
Sverker Jagers of Gothenburg University. The earths population will in all likelihood increase by three billion during the next 50 years. Additionally, many people will be better off economically. Higher standards of life have led to increased demand for meat and dairy products, almost irrespective of country or culture. Large quantities of
arable land are required to produce meat, especially beef. If the richer part of the world is prepared to pay a high price for meat, there is a risk that the limited arable land will be used for that which is most profitable, namely to produce animal feed instead of food for human consumption. Food products being used for feed for cattle leads to worldwide hunger Rifkin 02
Jeremy Rifkin, 5-17-2 The Worlds Problems http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0517-03.htm on a Plate originally published in the Guardian
Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry all over the world because much of the arable land is being used to grow feed grain for animals rather than for people. Cattle are among the most inefficient converters of feed. In the US, 157 million metric tons of cereal, legumes and vegetable protein suitable for human use is fed to livestock to produce 28 million metric tons of animal protein for annual human consumption. The worldwide demand for feed grain continues to grow, as multinational corporations seek to capitalize on the meat demands of affluent countries. Two-thirds of the increases in grain production in the US and Europe between 1950 and 1985, the boom years in agriculture, went to provide feed grain.
moo
30
Food Scarcity
Livestock industry sucks food away from the poor causing hunger and starvation-Ethiopia proves Rifkin 02
Jeremy Rifkin, 5-17-2 The Worlds Problems on a Plate originally published in the Guardian http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0517-03.htm Encouraging other nations to do this advances the interests of American farmers and agribusiness companies . Two-thirds
of all the grain exported from the US to other countries goes to feed livestock rather than to feed hungry people.Many developing nations climbed the protein ladder at the height of the agricultural boom, when "green
revolution" technology was producing grain surpluses. In 1971 the Food and Agricultural Organization suggested switching to coarse grains that could be more easily consumed by livestock. The US government provided further encouragement in its foreign aid program, tying food aid to development of feed grain markets. Companies like Ralston Purina and Cargill were given low-interest government loans to establish grain-fed poultry operations in developing countries. Many nations followed the advice of the FAO and have attempted to remain high on the protein ladder long after the surpluses of the green revolution have disappeared.The shift from food to feed continues apace in many nations, with no sign of reversal. The human consequences of the transition were dramatically illustrated in 1984 in Ethiopia when thousands of people were dying each day from famine. At the very same time Ethiopia was using some of its agricultural land to produce linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for export to the UK and other European nations as feed for livestock. Millions of acres of third world land are now being used exclusively to
produce feed for European livestock.
moo
31
Pathogen Transfer
American animal production risks pathogen transfer, causing illness and disease Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
The potential for pathogen transfer from animals to humans is increased in ifap because so many animals are raised together in confined areas. ifap feed and animal management methods successfully maximize the efficiency of
meat or poultry production and shorten the time it takes to reach market weight, but they also create a number of opportunities for pathogen transmission to humans. Three factors account for the increased risk: prolonged worker contact with
animals; increased pathogen transmission in a herd or flock; and increased opportunities for the generation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria or new strains of pathogens. Stresses induced by confinement may also increase the
likelihood of infection and illness in animal populations. Fifty years ago, a US farmer who raised pigs or chickens might be exposed to several dozen animals for less than an hour a day. Todays confinement facility worker is often exposed to
thousands of pigs or tens of thousands of chickens for eight or more hours each day. And whereas sick or dying pigs might have been a relatively rare exposure event 50 years ago, todays agricultural workers care for sick or dying animals daily in their routine care of much larger herds and flocks. This prolonged contact with livestock, both healthy and ill, increases agricultural workers risks of infection with zoonotic pathogens.
moo
32
Infectious Disease
American animal production risks pathogen transfer, causing illness and disease Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Numerous known infectious diseases can be transmitted between humans and animals; in fact, of the more than 1,400 documented human pathogens, about 64% are zoonotic (Woolhouse and Gowtage-Sequeria, 2005; Woolhouse et al., 2001). In addition, new strains and types of infectious and transmissible agents are found every year. Among the many ways that infectious agents can evolve to become more virulent or to infect people are numerous transmission events and co-infection with several strains of pathogens . For this reason, industrial farm animal production facilities that house large numbers of animals in very close quarters can be a source of new or more infectious agents . Healthy or asymptomatic animals may carry microbial agents that can infect and sicken humans, who may then spread the infection to the community before it is discovered in the animal population.
moo
33
Infectious Disease Impacts Infectious disease spread, especially animal-borne, results in extinction South China Morning Post, 96
(South China Morning Post, 1/4/96, Leading the way to a cure for AIDS. ) Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV."An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen."That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system."He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
moo
34
Food Borne Illness

Livestock production risks food borne illnesses like ecoli, which lead to illness and death Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Food production has always involved the risk of microbial contamination that can spread disease to humans, and that risk is certainly not unique to ifap. However, the scale and methods common to ifap can significantly affect pathogen contamination of consumer food products. All areas of meat, poultry, egg, and dairy production (e.g., manure handling practices, meat processing, transportation, and animal rendering) can contribute to zoonotic disease and food contamination (Gilchrist et al., 2007). Several
recent and high-profile recalls involving E. Coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica serve as dramatic reminders of the risk. Food-borne pathogens can have dire consequences when they do reach human
hosts. A 1999 report estimated that E. Coli O157:H7 infections caused approximately 73,000 illnesses each year, leading to over 2,000 hospitalizations and 60 deaths each year in the United States (Mead et
al., 1999). Costs associated with E. Coli O157:H7related illnesses in the United States were estimated at $405 million annually: $ 370 million for deaths, $ 30 million for medical care, and $5 million for lost productivity (Frenzen et al., 2005). Animal manure, especially from cattle, is the primary source of these bacteria, and consumption of food and water contaminated with animal wastes is a major route of human infection. Because of the large numbers of animals in a typical ifap facility, pathogens can infect hundreds
or thousands of animals even though the infection rate may be fairly low as a share of the total population. In some cases, it may be very difficult to detect the pathogen; Salmonella enterica (se), for
example, is known to colonize the intestinal tract of birds without causing obvious disease (Suzuki, 1994), although the infected hen ovaries then transfer the organism to the egg contents. Although the frequency of se contamination in eggs is low (fewer than 1 in 20,000 eggs), the large numbers of eggs65 billion produced in the United States each year means that contaminated eggs represent a significant source for human exposure. Underscoring this point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc) estimated
that se-contaminated eggs accounted for approximately 180,000 illnesses in the United States in 2000
(Schroeder et al., 2005). The potential advantage of ifap in this circumstance is that concentrated production and processing in fewer, larger facilities can result in improved product safety if regulations are properly instituted and vigilantly enforced
moo
35
Antibiotic Resistance
Antibiotic resistance makes disease inevitable and leads to massive death
Gilchrist 07 Mary J. Gilchrist, David B. Wallinga, George W. Beran, David G. Riley, and Peter S. Thorne, February 2007 The Potential Role of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Infectious Disease Epidemics and Antibiotic Resistance Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 313-316
Antibiotic resistance is increasing among most human pathogens. The many bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics in particular has heightened concern. In some cases there are few or no antibiotics available to treat resistant pathogens [Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1998; Mlbak et al. 1999]. Development of new
antibiotic classes has lagged behind pharmaceutical innovation in other areas, and some innovative new approaches to combating infection are still immature and unproven (Infectious Diseases Society of America 2005; IOM 1998 ).
Escalating resistance has raised concern that we are entering the "post antibiotic era," meaning we may be entering a period where there would be no effective antibiotics available for treating many lifethreatening infections in humans. If this proves true, deaths due to infection will once again become a very real threat to substantial numbers of children and young adults as well as the sick and the elderly.
moo
36
Antibiotic Extensions
Antibiotics are used in massive quantities on American livestock, leading to water contamination Sterling, Prof @European Grad school, 95
Bruce Sterling, Professor of Media and Design @ European Graduate School, February 1995 Bitter Resistance F&SF Science Column #15 http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/FSF_columns/fsf.15 Nor have humans been the only mammals to benefit. For decades, antibiotics have been routinely fed to American livestock. Antibiotics are routinely added to the chow in vast cattle feedlots, and antibiotics are fed to pigs, even chickens. This practice goes on because a meat animal on antibiotics will put on poundage faster, and stay healthier, and supply the market with cheaper meat. Repeated protests at this practice by American health authorities have been successfully evaded in courts and in Congress by drug manufacturers and agro-business interests.
The runoff of tainted feedlot manure, containing millions of pounds of diluted antibiotics, enters rivers and watersheds where the world's free bacteria dwell. In cities, municipal sewage systems are giant petri-dishes of diluted antibiotics and human-dwelling bacteria. Bacteria are restless. They
will try again, every twenty minutes. And they never sleep.
moo
37
Antibiotic Extensions
Antibiotic use in cattle causes resistant bacteria which leads to illness and death Begley 08
Sharon Begley, Newsweek, 2-26-8 The End of Antibiotics? lexis http://www.newsweek.com/id/116504/page/2 For sheer overprescription, no doctor can touch the American farmer. Farm animals receive 30 times more antibiotics (mostly penicillins and tetracyclines) than people do. The drugs treat and prevent infections. But the main reason farmers like them is that they also make cows, hogs and chickens grow faster from each pound of feed. Resistant strains emerge just as they do in humans taking antibiotics-and remain in the animal's flesh even after it winds up in the meat case. Many salmonella strains in turkey, for instance, are resistant to several common antibiotics. Although high heat kills them, the superbugs spread from animals to people through raw or undercooked meat. (People on antibiotics are particularly vulnerable the drugs kill off susceptible strains in the intestinal tract, leaving the field wide open for infection by resistant strains.) At least 500 people in the United States die annually from microbes present in meat and poultry; among them were the three children who ate E. coli-infested hamburger at Jack-in-the-Box restaurants last year. An additional 6.5 million people fall ill. The threat could be even greater to those who down a milkshake with their burger. Milk is allowed to contain a certain concentration of 80 different antibiotics-all used on
dairy cows to prevent udder infections. With every glassful, people swallow a minute amount of several antibiotics. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sets limits on how much of the 80 antibiotics milk can
contain, and insists that the less than 1 percent of milk that violates these limits is dumped. But a 1992 study by Congress's General Accounting Office found that states test for only four of the federally regulated antibiotics. The GAO's own
tests discovered traces of 64 antibiotics at levels "that raise health concerns": they could produce resistant germs in milk drinkers. That may be understating the case. In a recent study at Rutgers University, antibiotics at levels deemed safe by the FDA increased the rate at which resistant bacteria emerged by 600 to 2,700 percent.
moo
38
AFF STUFF Consumption High

Meat consumption is high now Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07
Jens Holms and Tovio Jokkala; The Livestock Industry and Climate, published by the Swedish left party; GUE NGL; http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/library/focus/meat_climate_report_en.pdf Consumption of animal products as food is increasing at an alarming pace in the world. Increasing
real incomes and population, combined with changing eating habits, have caused demand for animal products to skyrocket. Compared to the 1950s, the worlds meat consumption has increased fivefold. And by 2050 the global consumption of meat is expected to have more than doubled by comparison to 1999s levels
from 229 million tons to 465 million tons. With respect to global milk consumption during the same period, an increase from 580 to 1043 million tons is expected.
Meat is inexpensive so the American consumption rate is high Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins, 06
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm production; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health Putting Meat on the Table 2006 http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf As discussed, the transformation of traditional animal husbandry to the industrial food animal production model and the widespread adoption of ifap facilities have led to widely available and affordable meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs. As a result, animal-derived food products are now inexpensive relative to disposable income, a major reason that Americans eat more of them on a per capita basis than anywhere else in the world. According to the US Department of Agriculture (usda), the average cost of all food in the United States is less than ten percent of the average Americans net income, even though on a cost-percalorie basis Americans are paying more than the citizens of many other countries (Frazo et al., 2008).
moo
39
Consumption Growing
The Livestock industry is growing now Matthews, FAO, 2006
The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops. But such rapid growth exacts a steep
environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestocks Long Shadow Environmental Issues and Options. The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level, it warns.
moo
40

DDI-Meat DA

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DDI-Meat DA

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Berthiaume/Quinn 2009

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Cattle production down, statistics prove

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Production Low- Sustained

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Consumption will Decline

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Poverty Decline=Beef Demand

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Holms and Jokala, European Parliament, 07

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Soil Erosion Impacts

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Ogallala Aquifer Impacts

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Air Pollution Impacts

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

produce feed for European livestock.

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Food Borne Illness

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

AFF STUFF Consumption High

Dartmouth 2k9 Marissa Wizig

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen