Factory+Farming+-+The+Real+Cost

Student Name: Melissa Edwards Student Number: 8579075 Tutor: Michelle Cornford

**FACTORY FARMING – THE REAL COST **

//**The Artefact: **//

media type="custom" key="24293984"

The artefact “Factory Farming in 60 seconds Flat” is a film put out by the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) ultimately to expose the behind scenes treatment of the Meat, Dairy and Egg Industry. It depicts the image of the de-sensitisation of workers, gross mistreatment of animals and the filthy living conditions they endure prior to slaughter. The film is designed to leave the viewer shocked and saddened thus finally questioning their moral stance on industrialised farming practices and the inevitable threat of disease to the wider community.


 * //Public Health Issues: //**

Industrial farming operations can create public health hazards in a number of different ways. Scientists have shown that the practice of factory farming is an increasingly urgent danger to human health, the environment and non-human animal welfare (Pluhar, 2010).

Farming facilities are over crowded and stressful to animals, therefore making it easy for outbreak of disease or food borne illness (Williams, 2008). If the threat of these diseases are not controlled the direct threat to workers and the possibility of a community outbreak has the ability to cause a worldwide pandemic resulting in a public health emergency. As a result livestock facilities treat the  animals with low levels of antibiotics to prevent such illnesses, these antibiotics also have the ability to promote growth in the animal however this in turn has created a breading ground for antibiotic resistant bacteria. Sub-therapeutic dosages used on millions of factory farmed livestock have been known to reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics for human patients; this causes further concern for the general public’s health and wellbeing (Pluhar, 2010).


 * //Literature Review: //**

“a system of rearing livestock using highly intensive methods, by which poultry, pigs, or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions.” (Oxford University Press, 2013) Each year approximately 56 billion land animals are raised and killed worldwide for human consumption, this figure is set to double by 2050 thus animal production is growing faster than any other agricultural sub sector in the developed world (Ilea, 2008). Over the last decade small and medium scale livestock farms have given way to large factory farms. Factory farms are large industrialised farms on which large numbers of livestock are raised indoors in conditions intended to maxmise production at minimal cost. Overcrowding and confinement of cows, pigs and chickens have left animals wading in their own feces and exhibiting stress induced behaviors (Zuzworsky, 2001) leading to weakened immune systems and as a result have an abnormally high risk of disease. Whether these illnesses are spread direct from the animals or through the large quantities of waste they produce, there is increased potential of health issues for humans consuming animal products (The Pew Charitable Trust and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2008). However even at current levels the only way to sustain meat consumption is to industrialise its production, yet as the Pew commission recognises, factory farming is unsustainable and grossly deleterious to humans and nonhumans alike, as well as to the ecosystems that sustain us all (Pluhar, 2010).

In 2008 the Pew Commission published a comprehensive analysis on industrial farm animal production and subsequent impacts and indicated that such processes poses serious threat to human health, the environment, animal welfare and rural communities. The report suggested that out of 1400 documented human pathogens, about 64% were zoonotic. In addition, new strains and types of infectious and transmissible agents were found every year. Industrial farm animal production facilities that housed large numbers of animal s could be a source of new or more infectious agents; this could be done by numerous transmission events and co-infections with several strains of pathogens. (The Pew Charitable Trust and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2008).

In recent years we have seen major outbreaks of viral disease such as; Swine Flu and Avian Influenza. These viruses are passed direct from animal to human. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) (CDC) the H1N1 swine flu virus may be "the productof intensive farming.” Factory farming and long-distance live animal transport apparently led to the emergence of the ancestors of 2009 swine flu threat. The CDC estimates that between April 2009 and April 2010 61 million people were infected with the Swine Flu virus. Of the 61 million 274 000 were hospitalised and between 8 870 and 18 300 deaths occurred in the United States of America alone.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Bovine Spongiform Encephalopath (Mad Cow Disease), Salmonella, Escherichia coli or E. coli as it is more commonly known are food-borne bacteria that can cause zoonotic disease, food contamination and can spread through all areas of meat, poultry, egg and dairy production (e.g. Manure handling practices, meat processing, transportation, and animal rendering) (The Pew Charitable Trust and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2008). CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128 000 are hospitalized, and 3 000 die from foodborne diseases.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Farmers dosing factory-farmed animals with increasing amounts of antibiotics to compensate for the intensively confined and unsanitary conditions in which these pathogens arise is one of the methodologies used to combat potential risk of disease outbreak Without these antibiotics, the animals would likely die from disease before they could be slaughtered. The industry also uses the practice of antibiotic dosing to promote the growth of the animals, since intense confinement does not allow the animals to grow to the size that they would if raised outdoors, however this has led to a rising number of limitations in itself as antibiotic resistance has threatened the efficacy of antibiotics that are used to treat human illnesses.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Antibiotics in farm animals have been used since approximately 1946. Since then there is evidence indicating the over use of certain drugs has had an impact not only on the livestock, but the humans consuming the animals injected with these pharmaceuticals. Use of Penicillin to treat resistant bacteria was short lived, and by 1955, 13% of common Staphylococcus aureus infections were resistant to penicillin, by 1988 this percentage was up to 91% (Center for Food Safety, 2011). Additionally the New England Journal of Medicine has strongly suggested that the fact that people who developed resistant bacteria acquired it through pork, which contained salmonella, is proof that these resistant bacteria can pass from swine to human. Without the reduction on a global scale of antibiotics in farming we could have a similar impact, which will have serious repercussions to humans. A study by John Hopkins University has shown that our dependencies of antibiotics for increased profit are actually not accurate, but indeed harmful. Countries such as Canada and the European Union have banned the use of antibiotics as a therapeutic means and yet Australia and the United States continue to use them as routine practice (PBS Frontline, 2013).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">More recently The Pew report stated that despite increased recognition of the problem, the Infectious Disease Society of America recently declared antibiotic-resistant infections to be an epidemic in the United States. The CDC estimated that 2 million people contract resistant infections annually and, of those, 90 000 die. A decade ago, the Institute of Medicine estimated that antimicrobial resistance costs the United States between $4 and $5 billion annually, and these costs are certainly higher now as the problem of resistance has grown and intensified worldwide (The Pew Charitable Trust and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Healt <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5;">h, 2008).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5;">Unfortunately as factory farms have found ways to cut costs and drive out competitors, it has come at the expense of the animals' welfare and the consumers' health. Theorists and Economists alike are all too aware of the ma <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">ny associated pro <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5;">blems around factory farming. Well known animal rights activist and moral philosopher Peter Signer writes in his paper “ <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Who Pays for Bird Flu” - “Despite well founded criticisms, over the last 20 years factory farming has s <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5;">pread rapidly in developing countries, especially in Asia. Now we are discovering that the consequences may be far more deadly than we ever imagined. As University of Ottawa virologist <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Earl Brown put it after a Canadian outbreak of avian influenza, hi <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5;">gh intensity chicken rearing is a perfect environment for generating virulent avian flu viruses” (Singer, 2005). **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">“Perhaps in the back of our minds we already understand, without all the science that has been discussed, that something terribly wrong is happening. Human sustenance now comes from misery. We perhaps know more than we care to admit, keeping it down in the dark places of our memory – disavowed. ****<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5;">When we eat factory-farmed meat we live, literally, on tortured flesh. Increasingly, ****<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5;">that tortured flesh is becoming our own” (Foer, 2009). **


 * //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 160%;">Cultural and Social Analysis: //**

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">The review above provides information on public health issues related to current industrialised farming practices. While such strong evidence presents a valid argument as to why these factory farms should not operate or further more why consumers should cease to buy and consume their products it is extremelyimportant to understand why these farming practices continue to exist.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">There are many theoretical reasoning’s that would explain such behavior, for example: symbolic interactionism; those who take part in farming and harvesting of animals do not symbolically see them as anything but profit, and a way of life; they would argue that factory farming is necessary for society to function to meet the demands of the market. Another is conflict theory; one of which being that animals are not equal to humans in terms of rights or any other aspect.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">However affected ignorance, the phenomenon of people choosing not to investigate whether some practice in which they participate might be immoral or full with controversy can help explain the lack of widespread public debate about the moral status of factory farming practices. One form of affected ignorance occurs when people refuse to acknowledge the connection between their actions and the conse <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5;">quent suffering of their victims, in this case the animals in which they choose to slaughter or consume. Another case involves asking not to be informed of the nature of the practice in question (Williams, 2008).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">James Montmarquet’s review on Epistemic Virtue, wrap up is relevant to this topic. As he states;

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">“ The “tooth fairy” will, no doubt have had her (or his) day, and those with “faith” in this being will perhaps have had associated experiences - but, ultimately, it will be the very limited character of these in the life of children that marks this as “silly” --- and not truly, or very deeply, religious in character” (Montmarquet, 1987). ** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">In our society, we have the notion that just because the packages do not show us where the product has come from, and has a government approved grading stamp, everything is acceptable to our culture and society. Yet this ignorance is what allows the process to continue. If people could look through the window of the meat department and see the actual “source” of what they were purchasing, there would be a significant shift in our habits or eating practices.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Awareness of this issue is of extreme importance. As research has shown, the introduction of industrialised farming practices over the last 20 years has led to pandemic of disease outbreak causing sever illness and in many cases even death. However while the population continues to ignore research and support these practices by continued consumption of factory farmed meat they are hiding from their moral responsibility. Avoiding factory-farmed meat through practices like vegetarianism is morally justified. Potentially, so is the production and consumption of in-vitro meat. The continued raising and killing of sentient beings for our dinner tables is not, although switching from factory farming to humane food animals farming would be an improvement for humans, non-human food animals, and the environment. As the Pew Commission report and other research reveal, we are being forced to either change our ways or face devastating consequences on multiple fronts. It is to be hoped that knowledge, compassion, and rationality will inform that change as much as possible (Pluhar, 2009).

//**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 160%;">Analysis of Artifact and Reflection: **//

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">I believe the artifact I have chosen is an effective representation of gross malpractice within the industrialised farming industry and the possibility of associated public health issues that may arise from such conditions. The first time I watched this film I had to look away. I did not want to believe what I was seeing. I guess I was affected by ignorance in not wanting to know the truth. In today’s society we are so much more educated, we have the ability to source information at our fingertips and yet we chooses to ignore the public health risks that are associated with industrialised farming, me included.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">In future learning I now know to go with my gut instinct, to search within my inner child. I guess you could say to tap into my core beliefs and values, the ones I had before they were affected from outside influences and the so called “social norm”. I will take these learning’s with me not only throughout my degree but also throughout my life and career within the public health sector, as I know that with deeper knowledge you have a greater understanding and an ability for change.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">From the wisdom I have gained in researching this topic I will cease to consume any form of factory-farmed product. I choose not to ignore this problem but to face it head on and know that by making this small change I have done a small part for animal rights, the environment and public health.

//**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 21px;">Reflection Comments: **//

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">The Meatrix: https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/page/messages/The+Meatrix

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">The Paradox of Eating Ethical: http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/page/messages/The+Paradox+of+Eating+Ethically+-+The+Chicken+%26+The+Egg

//**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 160%;">References: **//

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). The 2009 H1N1 Pandemic: Summary Highlights, April 2009-April 2010. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). 2011 Estimates of Foodborne Illness in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletable.org/257/antibiotics

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Center for Food Safety. (2011). What’s Wrong with Factory Farming? Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Foer, J. S. (2009). Eating Animals. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">PBS Frontline. (2013). Antibiotic Debate Overview. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Ilea, R. C. (2008). Intensive Livestock Farming: Global trends increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 153-167. doi: 10.1007/s10806-008-9136-3

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Montmarquet, J. A. (1987). Epistemic Virtue. Oxford University Press, (96)384, 482-497. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Oxford University Press. (2013). Definition of factory farming in English. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/factory-farming

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2013). Factory Farming in 60 seconds flat[Audio podcast]. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Pluhar, E. B. (2010). Meat and morality: Alternatives to factory farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(5), 455-468. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9226-x

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Singer, P. (2005). Who Pays for Bird Flu? Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">The Pew Charitable Trust and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (2008). Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in America. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Williams, N. M. (2008). Affected ignorance and animal suffering: Why our failure to debate factory farming puts us at moral risk. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 371-384. doi: 10.1007/s10806-008-9087-8

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 110%;">Zuzworsky, R. (2001). From the marketplace to the dinner plate: The economy, theology, and factory farming. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 177-188. doi: 10.1023/A:1006419715108