2doWORLD

PrinterEmail

This new book deals with the eradication of diseases that pose a risk the health of animals, wildlife and humans. It includes developing a safe and wholesome food supply and the best practices in environmental stewardship, animal health and well-being.
From an environmental quality standpoint, much of the public and policy interest in animal agriculture has focused on impacts on water resources, because animal waste, if not properly managed, can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater. A more recent issue is the contribution of emissions from animal feeding operations (AFO), enterprises where animals are raised in confinement, to air pollution. Chapter 1 provides background on the latter issue.
Chapter 2 discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, that would produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws. Some industry sectors involved in negotiating the agreement, notably pork and egg producers, strongly support it, but other industry groups that were not involved in the discussions have concerns and reservations.
State and local air quality officials and environmental groups oppose the agreement, as discussed below.

In Chapter 3, animal producers which closely follow the development of farm bills because of their potential impact on production and marketing costs is reviewed. For example, policies promoting crop-based alternative fuels like ethanol already have raised the
prices of corn and soybeans, both important animal feedstuffs. Where additional biofuels policy incentives are being considered for inclusion in a 2007 farm bill, cattle, hog, and poultry producers have been urging restraint and/or encouraging more use of non-feed crops like grasses and field wastes. Other potential farm bill issues of interest include proposals from animal welfare groups to regulate on-farm care of animals; and from some farmerrancher coalitions to address perceived anti-competitive market behavior by large meat and poultry processing companies.
Chapter 4 reviews the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which issued changes to grazing regulations (43 C.F.R. Part 4100) on August 11, 2006, after a three year review. Some portions of the regulations have been enjoined. The previous major revision of grazing rules, which took effect in 1995, was highly controversial. The 2006 changes addressed many of the same issues, and received mixed reviews. BLM asserted that the 2006 changes were needed to increase flexibility for grazing managers and permittees, to improve rangeland management and grazing permit administration, to promote conservation, and to comply with
court decisions. Critics contend that a need for change was not justified and that changes adopted removed important environmental protections and opportunities for public comment.
Chapter 5 describes the provisions of Superfund and EPCRA, and enforcement actions under these laws that have increasingly been receiving attention. Congressional scrutiny in the form of legislative proposals and a House hearing in the 109th Congress are discussed. Bills intended to exempt animal manure from the requirements of Superfund and EPCRA were introduced in the 109th Congress, but no legislation was enacted. Similar bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 1398 and S. 807). Issues raised by the legislation are analyzed. Animal protection activists in the United States have long sought legislation to modify or curtail some practices considered by U.S. agriculture to be both acceptable and necessary to animal health. Members of Congress over the years have offered various bills that would affect animal care on the farm, during transport, or at slaughter; in 2007 these include H.R. 503, S. 311, H.R. 661, S. 394, and H.R. 1726. Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees generally have expressed a preference for voluntary rather than regulatory approaches to humane methods of care as reviewed in Chapter 6.

Chapter 7 covers animal ID and, to a lesser extent, meat traceability. However, traceability, and the somewhat different but related concepts of “identity preservation” and “product segregation,” also pertain to other agricultural products (e.g., grains) and issues (e.g., genetically modified, or GM, crops; the labeling of GM foods; and the production and labeling of organic foods). Several sources cited below, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service (ERS) and Choices articles (see footnote 1) and a 2002 Sparks study (see footnote 5), cover traceability in more breadth.
Livestock industry groups, animal health officials, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been working to establish a nationwide identification (ID) system capable of quickly tracking animals from birth to slaughter, in order to combat a serious
animal disease and/or to satisfy foreign market specifications as noted in Chapter 8. Some consumer groups are among those who believe ID also would be useful for food safety or retail labeling purposes. Some producers oppose new programs, fearing they will be costly and intrusive. In the 110th Congress as of April 2007, one related bill (H.R. 1018) had been introduced; it would prohibit a mandatory program. Lawmakers could be asked to consider this or other measures on the topic, possibly as part of a 2007 farm bill.
In Congress, policy debate has revolved around impacts of the sector’s structural and technological changes on farm prices, on the traditional system of smaller-sized, independent farms and ranches, and on rural communities and workers. Also at issue are implications for consumers, the environment, and trade. Inherent in these questions, which could be addressed during consideration of a new farm bill in 2007, is the appropriate role of government in intervening in or assisting the livestock, meat, and poultry industries all of which is reviewed in Chapter 9.