Industrial Farm Animal Production Research Articles

Mandatory Method-of-Production Labelling for Animal Products in the EU: A Case Study

As a result of the proliferation of industrial farm animal production on the one hand, and the growing global crises such as climate change or antimicrobial resistance on the other, food product sustainability has become an increasingly important item of interest on a long list of pressing concerns over planetary health. However, consumers may find it hard to act on these concerns in the absence of information on the methods of production on animal products. In the EU, the absence of a method of production labelling scheme is even more problematic for consumer information given the increase in animal-based products imports and the likelihood that methods used to produce those goods did not comply with EU rules. Depending on the choices made by consumers, a mandatory label of production method on the farming of animals used for food could eventually steer producers towards favouring methods of production that are in line with achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Furthermore, such a label would contribute to level the playing field on the EU market by imposing the same transparency rules to all sellers, including importers. Imposing a mandatory method of production labelling scheme raises the question of compatibility with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. This article tests a hypothetical method of production label against the WTO’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and concludes such a label could be found in compliance with the TBT Agreement. Labelling, process and production methods, consumer information, sustainability, Animal Welfare, food products

Thinking outside the box and beyond the slaughterhouse

Islamic and Jewish laws forbid the stunning of animals before slaughtering, which is considered the least painful practice to kill farmed animals. The debate on ritual slaughtering has struggled over the years to conciliate the perspectives of religious and animal rights. However, this debate has disregarded to date that, whether animals are killed through laic or ritual slaughtering, they are farmed under industrial farm animal production (ifap) where their rights are often scarcely considered. Current point of view is a critical contribution to the debate on ritual slaughtering. Starting from current limitations of the debate as concerns its ethical and technical dimensions, the paper elaborates on the relevance that considering animal suffering under ifap would have in a more coherent debate. Our analysis highlights that despite the endeavour to select and regulate the best slaughtering method, animal conditions under ifap still represent the main challenge for the overall welfare of farmed animals. Thereby, beyond the conflict between animal and religious rights a latent problem of food choices exists, that involves both laic and religious communities. The paper suggests achieving a shared cultural and social acknowledgement of animal rights and finding solutions to spread extensive farming systems as the most urgent objectives to contribute to reducing the suffering of farmed animals.

La concurrence des normativités au cœur de la labellisation du bien-être animal

Dans un contexte de profonde remise en cause de l’élevage dit « intensif » tendant à englober l’ensemble de la filière élevage sans distinction des pratiques, certains producteurs et partisans d’une meilleure protection des animaux de ferme voient en l’information des consommateurs en matière de bien-être animal un levier d’amélioration du sort des animaux et des acteurs de la filière. Cependant, l’augmentation de la quantité d’information ne se traduit pas toujours par une meilleure transparence quant aux méthodes de production. Au contraire, comme cela est le cas dans les points de vente français, l’excès d’information peut s’avérer aussi délétère que le manque de fiabilité des données communiquées. En l’absence d’une information de qualité, il est à craindre qu’une crise de confiance ne s’installe avant même que l’efficacité d’une régulation par l’information dans le domaine du bien-être animal ait pu être éprouvée. Une analyse des normes en matière de bien-être animal sous le prisme du phénomène de concurrence qui joue entre elles permet de distinguer l’information de qualité de celle de moindre qualité, en vue de prévenir la crise de confiance chez les consommateurs.

Toward the Eco-Narrative: Rethinking the Role of Conflict in Storytelling

Offered as a response to the increasingly popular call within the eco-humanities for stories that will help humankind adapt to catastrophic planetary conditions, this article proposes “the eco-narrative”—an approach to storytelling that strives to compose with, not for, its nonhuman characters. An extension of eco-critical projects that analyze stories for their depictions of nonhumanity, the theoretical research herein brings ecological analysis of narrative to the level of structure. In particular, it problematizes the dominant plot model of conflict/climax/resolution, suggesting that stories motivated by conflict reinforce dualistic and anthropocentric habits for approaching the animal other. Evaluating two narratives concerning the human practice of killing animals—the Pew Commission’s report on Industrial Farm Animal Production and Annette Watson and Orville H. Huntington’s “They’re here—I can feel them”—the article observes how the former’s efforts at animal rights advocacy are undermined by its very storytelling framework. Celebrating the latter story’s more playful approach to narrative instead, the article ultimately suggests that a theory of “infinite play,” as developed by James P. Carse, can be used to re-envision the dominant plot model. A template for cooperation in the absence of known outcome, infinite play thus becomes the basis for the eco-narrative—a storytelling framework flexible enough to cocreate with nonhumanity, even during an environmental moment characterized by crisis.

Semi-vegetarianism – good for animals, good for the environment and good for humans

ABSTRACT The world's population is burgeoning having increased from four billion in 1975 to 7.4 billion at the beginning of 2016. Thus, we need more food and this places more pressure on the environment. Coincident with this change, rates of obesity and of adverse mental health conditions are increasing in most developed countries and also in some developing countries thus burdening health systems. Furthermore, in the time that the world's population has doubled, the consumption of meat has tripled. Large population studies associate high meat consumption with deleterious health and reduced longevity so much so that the World Health Organization has labelled meat a carcinogen. Modern meat production depends on intensive animal production and the feeding of crops to animals, commonly known as “factory farming” or, more formally, “Industrial Farm Animal Production” (IFAP). This industry produces such a high proportion of the animals we eat that any reduction in meat eating will likely see less IFAP. The dom...

Farm Animal Welfare and Human Health.

The paper examines the relationship between farm animal welfare, industrial farm animal production, and human health consequences. The data suggest that when the animal welfare of land-based farm animals is compromised, there are resulting significant negative human health consequences due to environmental degradation, the use of non-therapeutic levels of antibiotics for growth promotion, and the consequences of intensification. This paper accepts that even if meat and fish consumption is reduced, meat and fish will be part of the diet of the future. Industrial production modified from the current intensified systems will still be required to feed the world in 2050 and beyond. This paper identifies the concept of sustainable intensification and suggests that if farm animal welfare is improved, many of the human health consequences of intensified industrial production can be eliminated or reduced. In water-based farm animal production, many new systems are resulting in a product that actually protects the environment and can be done at industrial levels without the use of antibiotics.

Science and sensibility

Science and sensibility

Industrial Farm Animal Production: A Comprehensive Moral Critique

Over the past century, animal agriculture in the United States has transformed from a system of small, family farms to a largely industrialized model—often known as ‘industrial farm animal production’ (IFAP). This model has successfully produced a large supply of cheap meat, eggs and dairy products, but at significant costs to animal welfare, the environment, the risk of zoonotic disease, the economic and social health of rural communities, and overall food abundance. Over the past 40 years, numerous critiques of IFAP have been published, for both academic and non-academic audiences, mostly focusing on our obligations to animals. Here we offer a comprehensive critique of IFAP, focusing not only on our obligations to animals, but also important environmental, social, economic, and public health concerns. Our cumulative argument proceeds in five steps: (1) we briefly review the structure and key characteristics of IFAP; (2) we review the adverse effects of IFAP; (3) we review the historical development and positive rationale for IFAP; (4) we summarize previous moral critiques of IFAP, as well as defenses of it; and (5) we offer a moral critique of IFAP based on the common morality, and in particular on a principle of nonmaleficence, which we take to be the least controversial argument.

Antibiotics: Call for Real Change

![Figure][1] CREDIT: ALVAREZ/ISTOCKPHOTO (MODIFIED BY G. GRULLON/ SCIENCE ) In his Editorial “Time to Deal with Antibiotics” (15 November 2013, p. [777][2]), D. Kennedy mentioned our assessment of the impact of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) ([ 1 ][3]). We support his call to end the misuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture. We believe, however, that finalization of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance documents will not have a meaningful impact on the way these life-saving drugs are administered to animals; thus, they will not slow the contribution of IFAP to our rapid progression toward a postantibiotic era. These guidances—nonbinding pleas for the cooperation of drug companies—do not call for an end to the use of antimicrobials in the absence of a microbial disease or documented disease exposure, as recommended by the Commission ([ 2 ][4]). Instead, they would effectively rebrand uses currently labeled “growth promotion” as “disease prevention.” Like growth promotion, prophylactic uses entail low, subtherapeutic doses and can span much of the animal's life span. They apply continuous selective pressure for antibiotic resistance and may even induce new resistance-conferring mutations ([ 3 ][5]). Furthermore, the FDA's proposal for veterinary oversight would eliminate the federal requirement that a valid “veterinarian-client-patient relationship” exist before veterinarians order the use of antibiotics in feed, allowing veterinarians to prescribe antibiotics for use at operations they have not visited recently for administration to animals they have never seen. The head of a large drug company recently told The Wall Street Journal that the guidances will not substantially affect revenues ([ 4 ][6]), implying that minimal changes to antibiotic sales are expected. This explains why companies support voluntary limits on their products: The limits will have little practical effect. We share Kennedy's assessment of the problem, but instead would call for meaningful regulation—comparable to what he attempted as FDA commissioner almost four decades ago—to curb irresponsible antibiotic use. If such efforts fall short, legislative relief is needed. 1. [↵][7] Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Industrial Food Animal Production in America: Examining the Impact of the Pew Commission's Priority Recommendations (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 2013); [www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/\_pdf/research/clf\_reports/CLF-PEW-for%20Web.pdf][8]. 2. [↵][9] Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 2008); [www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf][10]. 3. [↵][11] 1. D. C. Love, 2. M. F. Davis, 3. A. Bassett, 4. A. Gunther, 5. K. E. Nachman , Environ. Health Perspect. 119, 279 (2011). [OpenUrl][12][PubMed][13][Web of Science][14] 4. [↵][15] 1. P. Loftus , Zoetis chief leads animal-health firm following split from Pfizer, Wall Street Journal (2013); [1]: pending:yes [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1248056 [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #ref-3 [6]: #ref-4 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [8]: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/research/clf_reports/CLF-PEW-for%20Web.pdf [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [10]: http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [12]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEnvironmental%2BHealth%2BPerspectives%26rft.stitle%253DEnvironmental%2BHealth%2BPerspectives%26rft.aulast%253DLove%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%2BC.%26rft.volume%253D119%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D279%26rft.epage%253D283%26rft.atitle%253DDose%2Bimprecision%2Band%2Bresistance%253A%2Bfree-choice%2Bmedicated%2Bfeeds%2Bin%2Bindustrial%2Bfood%2Banimal%2Bproduction%2Bin%2Bthe%2BUnited%2BStates.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21030337%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [13]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21030337&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6167%2F136.1.atom [14]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000287926700013&link_type=ISI [15]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text

Poultry Litter Incineration as a Source of Energy: Reviewing the Potential for Impacts on Environmental Health and Justice

Legislation in North Carolina has mandated obtaining renewable energy from the incineration of poultry waste, resulting in proposals for three poultry-litter-fueled power plants statewide. This article summarizes environmental health and environmental justice issues associated with incineration of poultry waste for the generation of electric power. Emissions from poultry waste incineration include particulate matter, dioxins, arsenic, bioaerosols and other toxins; various components are associated with cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory illness, and other diseases. Industrial farm animal production tends to be concentrated in low-income, rural communities, where residents may be more vulnerable to air pollutants due to pre-existing diseases, other exposures and stressors, and poor access to medical services. These communities lack the political clout to prevent citing of polluting facilities or to pressure industry and government to follow and enforce regulations. Policies intended to reduce reliance on fossil fuels have the potential to increase environmental injustices and threats to environmental health.

Swine CAFOs & Novel H1N1 Flu: Separating Facts from Fears

With cases documented in more than 170 countries, the global swine flu pandemic that erupted in spring 2009 remains a serious public health problem. Caused by a strain of H1N1 influenza virus, which is normally found in pigs, the flu now known as novel H1N1 has so far been less severe than regular seasonal flu in terms of deaths and hospitalizations. Yet given its remarkable capacity for human-to-human transmission and a widespread lack of immunity among potentially exposed people, it’s likely the number of cases will rise during the flu season later this fall and winter, according to many public health experts. Given that possibility, enormous resources are being mobilized to address novel H1N1, with an emphasis on vaccine development, education, and efforts to its limit its movements among human communities. Yet one potential source of the original outbreak—factory swine farming in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)—has received comparatively little attention by public health officials. CAFOs house animals by the thousands in crowded indoor facilities. But the same economy-of-scale efficiencies that allow CAFOs to produce affordable meat for so many consumers also facilitate the mutation of viral pathogens into novel strains that can be passed on to farm workers and veterinarians, according to Gregory Gray, director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the University of Iowa College of Public Health. “When respiratory viruses get into these confinement facilities, they have continual opportunity to replicate, mutate, reassort, and recombine into novel strains,” Gray explains. “The best surrogates we can find in the human population are prisons, military bases, ships, or schools. But respiratory viruses can run quickly through these [human] populations and then burn out, whereas in CAFOs—which often have continual introductions of [unexposed] animals—there’s a much greater potential for the viruses to spread and become endemic.” Gray says workers exposed routinely to livestock can pass these zoonotic infections—which transmit readily among humans and animals—on to the wider public. However, public health agencies that monitor risks from zoonotic infections routinely overlook CAFO workers, according to Ellen Silbergeld, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. And animal disease sampling data collected by the food animal industry typically are not shared publicly, according to Gray, although such data could reveal how novel pathogens evolve in CAFOs and how they might move among animals, workers, and the broader community. Experts believe that without these data, society has a diminished capacity to detect and respond to new zoonotic threats before they become more widespread.

US National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production

US National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production