web analytics
Oct 162013

Green Right Now Reports

As Congress has been gripped by the dramedy of the Ted Cruz and Koch Brothers-inspired government shutdown/debt ceiling frenzy, people in California and a few other states have been quietly falling ill with Chickens at Foster Farmssalmonella.

Inspectors have traced the food poisonings to chickens raised in Central California plants run by Foster Farms, which has apologized for the outbreak, and issued a statement that it cares about safety. (To protect yourself from salmonella, see below.)

The infected chicken has not been recalled across the board. Costco, though, has recalled Foster Farms’ chickens that are roasted at its stores. Food inspectors first traced the outbreak to a South San Francisco Costco, where a cooked Foster Farms’ chicken tested positive for salmonella.

Like most livestock these days, the contaminated chickens were likely fed antibiotics to grow faster.

This routine use of antibiotics in livestock production reduces growth time, speeds up production and enhances the bottomline, but it also creates “super bugs” that develope a tolerance to the antibiotics and therefore cannot be killed by them. This renders doctors helpless in the face of strains of microorganisms that defeat antibiotic treatment.

In this recent outbreak, the chickens were found to carry a potent drug-resistant strain of “salmonella Heidelberg,” the Centers for Disease Control announced on Oct. 7.

More than 40 percent of the 317 reported affected people have had to be hospitalized with the illness, because of antibiotic resistance. That’s about double the rate of a typical past salmonella outbreaks, in which about 20 percent of those who fall ill suffer from recoveries complicated by antibiotic resistance, according to a report in SF Gate.

So far no one has died as a result of the outbreak. But the salmonella infections have spread to 20 states, with most victims residing in California.

Children and older people are most at risk of contracting salmonella, which is characterized by diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramping and lasts 4 – 7 days. About 42,000 suffer from a salmonella infection every year in the U.S. Though some of those illnesses are mild, 400 people die of salmonella poisoning annually, according to the CDC.

Congress could help solve this problem of rising human illness caused by antibiotic resistance by passing a bill that’s already been introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Slaughter’s bill would phase out routine antibiotic use in the livestock industry.

“We are standing on the brink of a public health catastrophe,” said Rep. Slaughter earlier this year.

“The threat of antibiotic-resistant disease is real, it is growing and those most at risk are our seniors and children. We can help stop this threat by drastically reducing the overuse of antibiotics in our food supply, and Congress should act swiftly to do so today.”

Antibiotic Use in US

Chart shows that most antibiotics used in the US are for livestock. (Source: U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter’s office.)

In March, Slaughter re-introduced H.R. 1150 “The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2013″ (PAMTA), which is aims to end the routine use of antibiotics on healthy animals to reduce the threat to human health of superbugs.

The CDC recently released a report on the devastating health effects of antibiotic resistance, finding that it claims the lives of 23,000 Americans every year. The agency made clear in announcing it’s study that livestock production is a key, if not the major, contributor to the problem.

Here is the CDC’s advice to consumers:

While it is not unusual for raw poultry from any producer to have Salmonella bacteria, it is uncommon to have multidrug-resistant Salmonella bacteria. CDC and USDA-FSIS recommend consumers and retailers follow these food safety tips to prevent Salmonella infection from raw poultry produced by Foster Farms or any other brand:

  • Clean
    • Wash hands with warm soapy water for 20 seconds before and after handling raw meat, poultry or seafood.
    • Wash utensils, cutting boards, dishes, and countertops with hot soapy water after preparing each food item and before you go on to prepare the next item.
    • Food contact surfaces may be sanitized with a freshly made solution of 1 tablespoon of unscented, liquid chlorine bleach in 1 gallon of water.
  • Separate
    • Separate raw meat, poultry, and seafood from other foods in your grocery shopping cart and in your refrigerator.
    • If possible, use one cutting board for fresh produce and a separate one for raw meat, poultry, and seafood.
    • Never place cooked food on a plate that previously held raw meat, poultry, or seafood.
  • Cook
    • Cook poultry to a safe minimum internal temperature of 165°F as measured with a food thermometer.
    • Retailers should hold cooked poultry to a safe minimum internal temperature of 165°F or higher as measured with a food thermometer.
  • Chill
    • Chill food promptly and properly. Refrigerate or freeze perishables, prepared foods, and leftovers within 2 hours (or 1 hour if temperatures are above 90°F).


Mar 152013

From Green Right Now Reports

In honor of World Water Day (March 22), our newsletter today from the Food Tank  included “7 Strategies for Reducing Water.”

We’re not talking turning off the faucet while you brush your teeth. That’s a nice way to teach kids the value of water. But to get really serious about conservation, we’re going to have to do so much more.

Water-HiRes PROMOIf you’re a homeowner, you can start by reducing the irrigation of your lawn, which is where 30 to 70 percent of your household water gets used.

Or you can turn off an even bigger water spigot by changing the way you eat. The Food Tank’s No. 1 way to cut the water you consume: Eat less meat.

While it takes some water to support any kind of agriculture, livestock production is the highest user, the website reports, citing the Global Water Policy Project:

The amount of water needed to produce one kilogram of red meat can range from 13,000 to 43,000 liters of water; poultry requires about 3,500 liters of water; and pork needs about 6,000 liters. Eating more meatless meals, even one or two days a week, can help conserve water resources.

Translated that means it would take 3,430 to 11,353 U.S. gallons of water — enough to fill a small backyard swimming pool — to produce one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of red meat.

Cattle in Pen close up Kansas PROMOThe scale of it is hard to envision. Buckets and barrels of water to produce enough meat for one or two family meals.

Of course some of this water gets run back into the water cycle, but not before it’s polluted at both the production and consumption ends (enough said) requiring more energy inputs to cleanse and treat it.

One big plus: This type of conservation is compatible with your health goals. Eating less red meat has been associated with improved heart health, and eating less meat overall may reduce your risk of certain cancers. The fats in meat, the way it’s currently produced, are hurting Americans, who already eat too many of the “bad” fats and not enough Omega 3s. The latter can come from meat, but mainly grass-fed or pastured meats, not the industrially produced grain fed beef, pork and chicken that’s mainstream fare.

Read the other six strategies for saving water at the Food Tank, a new website dedicated to fostering nutritional, sustainable food systems that increase food security worldwide.


Oct 202010

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

CAFO pulls back the curtain on industrial agriculture.

CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories (Daniel Imhoff, editor; Earth Aware, 2010) takes no shortcuts as it squires us on an uncomfortable walk through the ways of modern meat production. It’s a grimy, grisly world and while much is immediately apparent, it’s important to stay for the entire tour so you can appreciate all the connections, redundancies and stupidity in the system.

This isn’t easy. There are pictures — and text — that are pure horror show; glimpses of the slaughterhouse where you can almost smell the stench. But stay on the walk, so you’ll understand. That’s important, because in the end, this is not about a more efficient system that’s brutal but necessary to feed the world, but about a super-controlled corporate game that’s out of control.

Read the essayists in the book, which include some of the finest food and agriculture writers of our time, and you will see that these operations bear no resemblance to your grandfather’s farm. This is an accelerated assembly line food machine that wrings out profits by turning a blind eye to the inhumane treatment of livestock and the brutal conditions borne by low-wage and contract labor.

Yeah, if you read this book, if you look at the pictures, there might be some personal fall out. You could get caught up in the cause. You may never look at a chicken nugget without wincing again. But that could be a good thing.

May 062010

By Melissa Segrest
Green Right Now

Once upon a time, before plastic water bottles and giant plasma TVs and prepackaged foods and paper towels, there were moms who went about their days doing Earth-friendly things.

For some of them it’s a vague memory. For others it may be only legend and lore. But yes, there was a time without liquid detergents and big grocery stories and electric dryers.

Let’s not fool ourselves. Pesticides and lead and aluminum foil and fossil fuel pollution also were part of everyday life back in the 1950s, ‘40s, ‘30s and before. That’s not Mom’s fault. She didn’t know what we know today.

Kitchen towels, a concept so quaint, there's even a book about it. Fun and Collectible Kitchen Towels by Michelle Hayes.

Kitchen towels, a concept so quaint, there's even a book about it.

In honor of Mother’s Day, we’ve counted eight ways that moms of yore took care of Mother Earth, even if it wasn’t intentional:

1. Cloth napkins, kitchen towels and handkerchiefs

Before millions of trees had to die, there was cloth. Kleenex have been around for quite a while (since the mid 1920s) and Scott paper towels rolled out in 1931, but before that – and even for some time after – moms didn’t change their habits.

Cloth napkins were practical and pretty, and made of natural fabrics until paper products started to push them into dining room drawers. We suspect there are plenty of moms who still prefer soft cloth kitchen towels rather than endless rolls of paper towels.

Handkerchiefs were the order of the day, as long as centuries ago. In the 1940s, dapper men wouldn’t be seen without their pocket handkerchief folded neatly into the jacket’s left breast pocket.

Handkerchiefs also had a practical purpose – blowing the nose. Sanitary? Maybe not; practical, yes.

Apr 092010

From Green Right Now Reports

The fast food industry is slow to get that it needs to move to more sustainable packaging. That’s the word from the Dogwood Alliance, which this week launched a public awareness effort called Kentucky Fried Forests campaign to skewer Kentucky Fried Chicken’s practice of using unsustainably sourced paper.

(Photo: Dogwood Alliance)

(Photo: Dogwood Alliance)

Dogwood, a 14-year-old group focused on saving forests in the U.S. South, reports that Louisville-based KFC is failing to protect domestic forests by using paper that does not come from operations certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The FSC certification, used by Walmart, IKEA and other major retailers of wood products, is considered the gold standard for certification.

KFC, however, uses paper from the logging industry’s self-developed Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), which Dogwood calls a greenwashing “certification scheme.”

The SFI is “a green label on products made from business-as-usual industrial forestry practices,’’ the group says in a news release.

The group laments that only one Southern mill out of about 100 produces paper packaging that is sourced from authentically certified forests that adhere to the FSC’s stricter standards.

The nation’s Southern forests provide paper packaging for companies around the world, supplying 20 percent of global needs for pulp, paper and lumber with just 2 percent of the world’s forests. But with such low participation in the FSC’s certification program, the South is losing its forests to clear cutting for paper and paper packaging, Dogwood leaders say.

Dogwood is calling on KFC to lead the way out of this forest of destruction, because it is both a big user of paper packaging and an established Southern business.

“KFC prides itself as a southern heritage brand while it has knowingly contributed to the destruction of the natural riches within this community for decades,” stated Danna Smith, executive director of Dogwood Alliance. “It’s time for KFC to lead, and prevent these areas that have served as flood barriers, a vital source of clean drinking water and places of recreation for southerners for hundreds of years, from becoming disposable buckets for KFC chicken.”

KFC, a part of Yum! Brands, operates 5,200 restaurants in the United States and thousands more outlets around the world. It did not have an immediate response to the Dogwood action on its website. KFC did offer information about its newest product, the double-down bunless (but not paperless) chicken sandwich, which is served without a bun. The buns will be donated to charity as part of the “sandwiches” promotion.

Dogwood, meanwhile, has its sites on the KFC buckets, which are more emblematic of the packaging involved in fast food.

It chides KFC for getting its packaging source material from International Paper, which it says also uses the deceptive SFI certification to mask destructive forestry practices.

“IP has long been associated with the worst forestry practices, including large-scale clearcutting and the conversion of diverse natural forests to sterile mono-culture plantations,’’ the group reports.

IP reports on its sustainability webpage that “our company has been one of the most environmentally responsible companies in the world. We have always taken a sustainable approach to business that balances environmental, social and economic needs. This approach has served our company and society well.”

IP also defends its use of the SFI certification, saying on its website that: “Our company supports the existence of multiple certification standards to increase the amount of certified fiber and the concept of mutual recognition, which acknowledges that responsible forest management can be achieved through a number of credible certification systems.”

Mar 112010

(The piece posted here is the Introduction to Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment by David Kirby. The new book (March 2010)  examines the environmental contamination and heath impacts of industrial livestock production.)

David Kirby, author of Animal Factory

David Kirby, author of Animal Factory

Many Americans have no idea where their food comes from, and many have no desire to find out.

That is unfortunate.

Every bite we take has had some impact on the natural environment, somewhere in the world. As the planet grows more crowded, and more farmers turn to industrialized methods to feed millions of new mouths, that impact will only worsen.

The willful ignorance of our own food’s provenance is curious, given our Discovery Channel-like fascination with the way in which everything else in our modern world is made. Some consumers will spend hours online reading up on cars, cosmetics, or clothes, searching out the most meticulously crafted or environmentally healthy products they can find, then run down to the supermarket and load their carts with bacon, butter, chicken, and eggs without thinking for a second where — or how — any of those goods were produced.

This is starting to change, of course. More Americans are coming to realize that the modern production of food — especially to provide for our affluent, protein-rich diet — has a direct and sometimes negative impact on the environment, the well-being of animals, rural communities, and human health itself. Some have joined in a contemporary consumer revolt of sorts that has put the corporate food industry on the defensive in recent years.

At the center of the storm are the large-scale, mechanized megafarms where hundreds of thousands of cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys are fed and fattened for market, all within the confines of enclosed buildings or crowded outdoor lots.

Government and industry call these massive compounds “confined [or concentrated] animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs (usually pronounced KAYfohs), though most people know them simply as “factory farms.” Chances are you have seen them from above, while flying in an airplane: long White buildings lined up in tightly packed rows of three, four, or many more.

CAFOs are where most of our animal protein — our milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, eggs, chicken, turkey, bacon, sausage, cold cuts, ribs, pork chops, and, increasingly, beef and fish — comes from these days. Old MacDonald’s farm — with his big red barn and clucking chicks in the yard — is quickly fading away into a romanticized past. Today, MacDonald would most likely be working as a contract grower for some conglomerate, raising tens of thousands of animals inside giant enclosures according to strict instructions dictated by the company, which typically owns the livestock but is not responsible for the thousands of tons of waste left behind before the survivors are trucked off to slaughter.

Large companies with kitchen-table names like Perdue, Tyson, Smithfield, Cargill, ADM, and Land O’Lakes now control much of the poultry and livestock production in the United States. They own the animals, they control the all-important processing and packing plants, they often operate their own distribution networks, and they sell an array of brands to consumers in the Supermarket.

This “vertical integration” model of production — some would call it an old-fashioned, illegal trust in need of a Teddy Roosevelt-style buster — leaves small and independent growers at such an obvious disadvantage that many of them give up animal agriculture altogether. Two percent of U.S. livestock facilities now raise 40 percent of all animals,1 and the vast majority of pigs, chickens, and dairy cows are produced inside animal factories.2

Livestock and poultry are very big business in America. Like all industries, agribusiness has barons that wield extraordinary political and economic clout, with billions at their disposal to spend on K Street lobbying, local and national political campaigns, saturation advertising, feel-good PR (see: “California, happy cows”), and other means of creating a favorable business climate for themselves.

And like many big industries, factory farms are major contributors to air, water, and land pollution. Science and government have concluded without a doubt that CAFOs are responsible for discharging millions of tons of contaminants from animal manure into the environment every year — much of it illegally.

Unlike the steel, auto, or coal industries, livestock operations are not subject to the same stringent rules, regulations, laws, and controls on environmental discharges. After all, what could be more important than the guarantee of an abundant, safe, and affordable food supply? What could be more sacrosanct in American legend and law than the farms and farmers who make sure our food gets to the national dinner table night after night?

Besides, how could a farm be considered a factory? There are no smokestacks on a farm. There are no chemical plants or refineries, and very few vehicles. Where, then, is all that supposed pollution coming from, and how much of a problem could there actually be?

Consider this:

  • Each year, the United States produces more than one ton of “dry matter” (the portion remaining after water is removed) animal waste for every resident,3 and animal feeding operations yield one hundred times more waste than all U.S. human sewage treatment plants.4
  • While human sewage is treated to kill pathogens, animal waste is not. Hog manure has ten to one hundred times more concentrated pathogens than human waste,5 yet the law would never permit untreated human waste to be kept in vast “lagoons,” or sprayed onto fields, as is the case with manure.
  • Manure can contain pathogens, antibiotics, drug-resistant bacteria, hormones, heavy metals, and other compounds that can seriously impact human health, aquatic life, and wildlife when introduced into the environment, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  • The eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay produces one million tons of manure a year, enough to fill a football stadium “to the top row, including all the concourses, locker rooms, and concession areas.”6
  • Agricultural waste is the number-one form of well-water contaminants in the United States, where at least 4.5 million people are exposed to dangerously high nitrate levels in their drinking water. 7
  • A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study of well water in nine Midwestern states showed that 13 percent of the supply had nitrate levels above the EPA standard of ten milligrams per liter.8
  • Feedlot odors contain some 170 separate chemicals,9 many of them known to cause respiratory ailments, diarrhea, depression, violent behavior, and other health problems.
  • Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than cars, a UN report warns.10

Animal-factory proponents say that CAFOs are the most cost-effective method in the world of producing meat, milk, and eggs. They credit modern American agriculture with yielding the cheapest food in human history — which is hard to refute — and also the safest, which is debatable.

Animal industrialists say that by confining poultry and livestock to CAFOs — as opposed to letting them roam free on ranges, pastures, and fields — they are providing warm and clean environments where farm animals can thrive, free from the threats of the elements, predators, or even attacks from other farm animals. The delivery of food, water, and veterinary care becomes more efficient, they contend, and animals can be moved more quickly to market, increasing profitability.

Besides, according to these industrialists, consumers demand cheap, lean, uniform cuts of meat, and using CAFOs is the only possible way to deliver that.

But animal-factory opponents, whose ranks are growing — they are not only consumers, but scientists, politicians, and farmers, as well — charge that the only way CAFO production can be profitable is by passing along, or “externalizing,” certain costs associated with raising so many animals in such a small place.

In 2008, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production released a landmark report on CAFOs. It reached some very sobering conclusions about their impact on our health, the environment, rural communities, farm workers, food safety, animal welfare, and the looming threat of evolving microbes — including antibiotic-resistant E. coli, MRSA, and, of course, swine flu virus.

The Pew report reminds us that the price of protein, given the externalities of animal-factory production, often goes well beyond the price tag in your grocer’s aisle.

“These ‘externalities’ may include anything from changes in property values near industrial farming operations, to health costs from polluted air, water, and soil, and spreading resistant infections or diseases of animal origin, to environmental degradation or cleanup costs — all of which are ‘paid’ by the public,” the Pew Commission said, “even though they are not included in the cost of producing or buying the meat, poultry, eggs, and milk that modern industrial animal agriculture provides.”11

Animal Factory is not strictly an anti-CAFO book, though many in the agricultural community will perceive it that way. I do not call for an end to industrial animal production, nor do I draw any personal conclusions myself. Informed consumers — whether of food or of information — are vital to a healthy democracy. I would never dream of telling people what to eat or, more important, what not to eat. But we all have a responsibility, even an ethical obligation, to know where our food comes from, and what impact its production has on the environment and public health, before we take it home and fry it up in a pan.

Wherever possible, I have tried to include voices from the animal-production industry and other CAFO supporters. Many farmers believe that industrial animal production is the only option open to them if they are to remain in farming, and they are grateful to the large companies for providing steady contracts and a stable economic environment for them to survive.

One powerful argument for agribusiness is that it offers a lower retail price of food to shoppers. For consumers, factory-farmed meat, milk, and eggs are usually considerably more affordable than their organic, free-range, or “sustainably produced” counterparts. Most working families do not have the luxury of buying high-end, “boutique” protein. Some opponents of CAFOs would counterargue that families should simply cut down on the animal products they buy.

I am not a vegetarian, and you will occasionally find me in line for fast food, so I have no business telling others how to eat. Food — like sex, politics, and religion — is an intensely personal, emotional, and complicated subject.

Moreover, farmers are not evil people. The farmers I got to know, including those who operate CAFOs, seemed to genuinely care about the environment, the animals, their communities, and the quality and safety of the food they produced.

On the other hand, I cannot dismiss or forget what I witnessed firsthand in my three years of reporting this story. I met with people living within smelling distance of animal factories in the chicken belts of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, in the hog belt of North Carolina, in the upper Midwestern CAFO states of Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, and in the arid western dairy regions of Texas, central California, and the Yakima Valley of Washington.

Everywhere I went, the story was the same: CAFOs had fouled the air, spoiled the water, threatened property values, changed the face of local agriculture, and made life miserable for thousands of people, though certainly not everybody.

Sadly, I could only tell a fraction of the stories I heard. This book is not an encyclopedic history of all forms of animal production in the United States. Many people, for example, will notice and perhaps criticize the paucity of information about the raising of beef cattle and farmed fish in America. Though I am not trying to somehow “clear” beef of any responsibility, I do think that its production is the least problematic of all CAFO-related protein; most U.S. beef cattle are still owned and raised by independent producers — on open pasture, grassland, or through grazing permits on federal land — and spend only the last few months of their lives being fattened on grain in massive feedlots, which most certainly qualify as CAFOs, with all their attendant environmental issues. (Another reason I did not write about beef feedlots more is that, aside from residents of Yakima Valley, they were not an issue for any of the people I profiled.)

As for fish farms, they certainly present challenges that keep some environmentalists up at night, including farmed-salmon escapees that introduce harmful pests such as sea lice and viral diseases that infect wild fish populations. One could write an entire book on the environmental impact of fish farms alone. On the other hand, I have never heard anyone complain about foul odors or noxious gases coming from fish farms.

Animal factories of every stripe are currently under fire. So what does that mean for the future of CAFOs? Will they be reformed into universal acceptability? Will they be litigated into oblivion? Will they be driven out of the country? The truth is, none of those things is likely.

Only time will tell how this dramatic saga plays out. But humankind may not have the last word on whether CAFOs will be with us in twenty years.

That decision will belong to nature.

And nature did not intend for animals to live by the hundreds or thousands, crammed together inside buildings, raised with pharmaceutical products, with no access to grass, sunlight, or the clean, healthy scent of outdoor air.


1. USDA Agricultural Research Service, “National Program 206: Manure and Byproduct Utilization Action Plan,” 2005, http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=409616&showpars=true&fy=2008.

2. USDA National Statistics Service, “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations,” 2006, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1259.

3. USDA Agricultural Research Service, “FY-2005 Annual Report: Manure and Byproduct Utilization,” 2006, http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?np_code=206&docid=13337.

4. Charles P. Gerba and James E. Smith, Jr., “Sources of Pathogenic Microorganisms and Their Fate During Land Application of Wastes,” Journal of Environmental Quality 34, no. 1 (2004): 42-48, http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/34/1/42.pdf.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Detecting and Mitigating the Environmental Impact of Fecal Pathogens Originating from Confined Animal Feeding Operations: Review,” EPA/600/R-06/021, September 2005, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r06021/600r06021.htm.

6. J. Warrick and T. Shields, “Md. Counties Awash in Pollution-Causing Nutrients,” Washington Post, October 3, 1997.

7. B. T. Nolan, B. C. Ruddy, K. J. Hitt, and D. R. Helsel, “A National Look at Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water,” Water Conditioning and Purification 39, no. 12 (1998): 76-79, http://www.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nutrients/pubs/wcp_v39_no12/.

8. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, “A Survey of the Quality of Water Drawn from Domestic Wells in Nine Midwest States,” September 1998, http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/statistics/environmental.

9. Confined Livestock Air Quality Committee of the USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, Air Quality Research and Technology Transfer, “Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,” July 12, 2000, 7, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r04042/600r04042.pdf.

10. H. Steinfeld et al, Livestock’s Long Shadow-Environmental Issues and Options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006), http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM.

11. Pew Commision on Industrial Animal Production, “Putting Mean on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America,” a Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2008, http://www.ncifap.org
The above is an excerpt from the book Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment by David Kirby. The above excerpt is a digitally scanned reproduction of text from print. Although this excerpt has been proofread, occasional errors may appear due to the scanning process. Please refer to the finished book for accuracy.

Copyright © 2010 David Kirby, author of Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment

David Kirby is a Huffington Post contributor and author of the New York Times bestseller Evidence of Harm, winner of the 2005 Investigative Reporters and Editors Award for Best Book, and finalist for the New York Public Library Helen Bernstein award for Excellence in Journalism. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.