Small Farms in Decline by cuiliqing

VIEWS: 40 PAGES: 76

									 Corporate Dairy Production:
How the Industry Profits at Our
          Expense

        Jason McVay
     Urban Studies 515
  Race Poverty & the Urban
        Environment
    Corporate Dairy Farming
        Current practice is to produce as much milk as the industry can, with fewer cows, and at the cheapest cost
         possible to ensure competitive prices on the world market. It has had disastrous effects on human health, the
         environment and especially the small farmer.

        In this summary of intensive dairy operations, I will describe:

    1)        Dairy Production: Just how intensive production is. The amount of dairy product on the market, from the
              U.S. alone is staggering and production shows no sign of letting up.

    2)        Advertising: The advertising campaigns used to market and sell a product who‟s demand has been
              decreasing since the 1970‟s, and how the federal government sponsors the claims and the faulty scientific
              evidence with which dairy products are promoted to children, women and people of color.

    3)        Health Impacts of Dairy Consumption: associated with mass-produced dairy products, including effects of
              rBGH, hormones and dioxin.

    4)        Environmental Impacts of Dairy Operations: Including effects to other species, humans, and the risks
              associated with working on the corporate farm.

    5)        The Lagoon and Sprayfiled System: Waste disposal.

    6)        Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development: Conglomeration in the dairy industry and how it
              effects the small farmer and deteriorates opportunity for community development.

    7)        The World Bank and Dairy Production: The World Bank wants to promote the Western model to the
              developing world, despite possible disaster.

    8)        Conclusion: Americans are concerned with their food supply. Corporate farming is in conflict with what we
              want, yet keeps chugging along with government support.
Dairy Production

   Holstein dairy cows weigh approximately 1,400 pounds and eat 50 pounds of dry feed each
    day, which accounts for half of the U.S. industry‟s production costs.

   Feed generally consists of corn silage (fermented for increased nutritional value), winter
    grain silage, alfalfa hay, corn, barley, food wastes such as hulls and fruit pulp, cottonseed [i],
    soybean seed and other high energy additives like fats.[ii] Roughage must comprise 40
    percent of feed in order to allow the rumen to function properly.[iii]

   For Victoria, Canada, the country‟s largest dairy producing region, total feed intake
    averaged 4,000 kilograms of dry feed per year per cow, and, during 1999/2000, total feed
    consumption for the dairy industry was about 7,224 kilotonnes.[iii]

     –   [i] Collar, Carol. The Dairy Industry in Kings County {Private}. Dairy Notes, the University of California
         Cooperative Extension. http://countyofking.com/kingsce. Accessed 5/16/03.
     –   [ii] Ely, Lane O. and Githrie, Larry D. Managing the High Producing Dairy Cow. University of Georgia
         College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service.
         http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c788-w.htm. Accessed 5/16/03.
     –   [iii] Dairy Research and Development Corporation. Grain Consumption by the Dairy Industry to double
         by year 2000. Meyers Strategy Group. Research Note 28, 1995.
Dairy Production

   Water consumption is immense. Dairy cows drink 10 times a day, leading to a 10.7 percent
    increase in butterfat content. “Dry Holstein cows drink on the average 40 kilograms per day;
    milking cows about 85 kilograms per day. Calves drink 4 to 23 kilograms per day.”[i] The
    USDA claims average consumption is between 25-50 gallons per day, with another 30
    gallons of water per cow devoted to washing equipment and parlors. Jack Van Horn, with
    the University of Florida‟s Cooperative Extension Service, says a New Mexico dairy cow will
    use 115 gallons of water per day. Lots include thousands of cows:

     “...a 3,000 head dairy will use 345,000 gallons of water per day…” not including water used
          for crop irrigation that will become feed. A dairy of the same size applied for a
          wastewater permit to discharge 75,000 gallons per day into a lagoon system.[ii]
     –
         [i] Irwin, R.W. Water Requirements of Livestock. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Factsheet.
         Updated 1992. http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/engineer/facts/86-053.htm#dairy. Accessed
         5/16/03.
     –   [ii] Concerned Citizens for Clean Water, Inc. Dairies and CAFO‟s Contribute to Water Depletion and
         Pollution. http://saveourwatersupply.com/cafos . Accessed 5/16/03.
Dairy Production

   These numbers are to promote optimum production from the cow:

    “Every time the cow goes off feed she will decrease her milk production. Not only is milk
    production lost, but because some secretary tissue is lost, she never quite recovers her
    production potential.”[i]

    Constant lactation is current practice, milking three times a day if feeding is adequate,
    increasing production up to 25 percent. Rolling herd averages are above 20,000 pounds
    per cow per year, with some hitting 30,000 pounds.[ii]

    USDA numbers from 2002 state an average of 18,571 pounds per cow, up 412 pounds per
    cow from 2001. There were 9.14 million cows producing milk, 27,000 more than in 2001.[iii]
     –
         [i] Ely, Lane O. and Githrie, Larry D. Managing the High Producing Dairy Cow. University of Georgia College of Agriculture
         and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c788-w.htm. Accessed
         5/16/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Milk Production, Disposition and Income: 2002
         Summary. April, 2003.
Dairy Production

   The darling of the industry is Arlinda Ellen who produced 55,661 pounds of milk in 1975, a
    current record. Her best day was 195 pounds of milk, and she averaged 152.5 pounds per
    day. “During the peak of lactation she ate over 65 pounds of 16 percent commercial grain,
    70 pounds of alfalfa hay, and she drank 50 to 60 gallons of water per day…She consumed
    over 7 percent of body weight as dry matter…”[i]

     –   [i] Ely, Lane O. and Githrie, Larry D. Managing the High Producing Dairy Cow. University of Georgia
         College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service.
         http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c788-w.htm. Accessed 5/16/03.
Dairy Production
   The United States, the world‟s largest dairy producer, markets milk, milk powders, frozen
    deserts, cheese and whey. For 2002, dairy production was as follows:

   Fluid Milk: Production increased 3 percent from 2001 to 170 billion pounds.[i]

   Cheese: 8.6 billion pounds, 4.1 percent above 2001. Wisconsin was the leading state,
    contributing 26 percent of production.

   Butter: 1.36 billion pounds, 10 percent above 2001. California led with 28 percent of
    production.

   Frozen desert: Regular ice-cream totaled 989 million gallons, 1.9 percent higher than 2001;
    Lowfat ice-cream totaled 362 million gallons, down 4.9 percent; and Nonfat was 20.6 million
    gallons, a 7.8 percent decrease from 2001; Sherbet production increased 3.8 percent from
    2001 levels to reach 54.6 million gallons; and Frozen Yogurt production hit 73.4 million
    gallons, up 3.2 percent from 2001.

   Nonfat dry milk for human consumption: 1.57 billion pounds, up 11.0 percent from 2001.

   Dry Whey Products: Whey for human consumption increased 7.5 percent to 1.05 billion
    pounds; animal whey production was 63.1 million pounds, down 5.6 percent.[ii]
     –   [i] ibid.
     –   [ii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Dairy Products: 2002 Summary. April, 2003.
Advertising

   Dairy industry advertising campaigns have been very successful at keeping an industry
    whose demand has been generally decreasing since the 1970's, profitable. Cash receipts
    from milk marketing efforts in 2002 reached $20.5 billion, a 17 percent decrease from 2001.
    Per hundredweight returns for producers dropped 19 percent from the previous year to
    $12.19.[i]

     –   [i] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Milk Production, Disposition and Income: 2002
         Summary. April, 2003.
Advertising

   The promotion programs (administered by the National Dairy Promotion and Research
    Board which operates under the larger blanket of the USDA) have come from two Acts of
    Congress:

   the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act), and the Fluid Milk Promotion Act
    of 1990 (Fluid Milk Act).

   Both programs are funded by levies placed on product; 15 cent-per-hundredweight for the
    Dairy Act's production research and nutrition education efforts, and 20 cent-per-
    hundredweight assessment for processors who market more that 500,000 pound per month
    for the Fluid Milk Act's education and promotion schemes.[i] "It is estimated that dairy
    producers received $5.33 in return for each additional dollar spent on generic promotion."[ii]

     –   [i] Blisard, Noel. Advertising and What We Eat: The Case of Dairy Products. Economic Research
         Service, USDA.
     –   [ii] ibid.
      Advertising

   Both Acts accounted for $183.5 million in advertising from 1984 to 1996 and increased consumption by
    16.9 billion pounds of fluid milk.

   An increase of 1.4 billion pounds of consumed fluid milk occurred from October 1995 to September 1996,
    when $29.8 million was spent on advertising. This amounts to a 5.9 increase in sales.

   24 billion pounds of cheese were consumed during the 1984 to 1996 period, an increase of 561.9 million
    pounds or 2.3 percent. From October 1995 to September 1996 advertising increased cheese sales by
    5.3 million pounds (0.4 percent).[i]

     –   [i] Blisard, Noel. Advertising and What We Eat: The Case of Dairy Products. Economic Research Service, USDA.
      Advertising

   In March 1994, the marketing efforts of the American Dairy Association and the National Dairy Council
    merged to create Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI).[i]


   DMI's implementation allows for national, regional and local marketing efforts to function together. "At
    the 2001 forums, dairy directors across the country helped to finalize dairy promotion's long term
    marketing plan, which for fluid milk focused on kids and the mothers of those young children..."[ii] Also, a
    heavier focus on kid's school programs and a more "proactive" dairy image protection effort were goals
    for 2001.

   Public relations campaigns, print, and television advertising has received primary funding, focusing on
    kids, young teens and Hispanic and African-Americans.[iii]

     –   [i] Kaiser, Harry M. Impacts of Generic Fluid Milk and Cheese Advertising on Dairy Markets 1984 -1998. Department
         of Agriculture, Resource, and Managerial Economics. Cornell University. 1999.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
Advertising

   Milk is marketed to our youth through the school systems.[i]

     –   It is important to remember, that milk and other dairy products are promoted as
         necessary for healthy, nutritious diets. Schools are required to promote good nutrition
         and receive pressure from the government, parents, and the public at large to do so.
         As long as dairy products are treated as necessities to prevent osteoporosis and
         promote strong skeletal development, dairy products will always be a part of
         institutional nutrition education.

     –   [i] Rangwani, Shanti. White Poison: The Horrors of Milk. www.alternet.org. 2001.
Advertising

   DMI claims that school milk consumption promotes the general health of our children. In a
    fairly recent study sponsored by the National Dairy Council and published by Promar
    International an economic consulting firm, "specializing in food and agricultural economic
    and strategy analysis" that, "If the nation's schools adopted enhancements to school milk,
    children's nutrition would improve long-term and Americans would likely achieve major long-
    term cost savings in health care."[i]



   This claim is the result of a pilot test conducted during the 2001-2002 school year, involving
    more than 100,000 students from 146 schools in 12 markets. "The pilot test clearly showed
    that more children will opt to drink more milk when offered an enhanced milk product as part
    of the school meal program."[i] The estimates suggest a per capita increase of 1.4 gallons
    among the 6-17 age bracket resulting in a 67 million gallon overall increase. The industry is
    currently riding a 10-ear high in consumption among this same age group.[ii]

     –   [i] Pelzer,David. Study: School Milk Enhancements Nationwide Will Help America Save $1 Billion in
         Future Health Care Costs. Dairy Management Inc. 2002.
     –   [i] ibid.
     –   [ii] ibid.
Advertising
   The increase in consumption is directly related to the enhancements implemented, which
    was the focus of the pilot test. The enhancements include:

     –   plastic, resealable packaging in sizes from 8-16 ounces,
     –   introduction of additional flavors (beyond white and chocolate),
     –   expanded availability, including vending machines, and,
     –   improved refrigeration.[i]

     Promar states that the savings would be due to the healthier diet of our youth:

         "During their lifetime, more than 2.6 million students could reduce their risk of
         osteoporosis, hypertension, colorectal cancer, type II diabetes, coronary heart disease,
         and stroke by adopting and maintaining healthy diets - including drinking milk at school
         and participating in school meal programs."[ii]

     –   [i] Pelzer,David. Study: School Milk Enhancements Nationwide Will Help America Save $1 Billion in
         Future Health Care Costs. Dairy Management Inc. 2002.
     –   [ii] ibid.
Advertising

   The school programs implemented in the United States have now become international.
    President Clinton launched the Global Food for Education Initiative in 2000. The program,
    with $300 million in funding, allowed the USDA to export surplus foodstuffs such as skim
    milk powder, and various starches to 9 million children around the world.

   The U.S. Dairy Export Council is thrilled. "USDEC supports the initiative as a way of helping
    needy children, while also promoting and developing new outlets for dairy products.

     –   USDEC believes this program should be permanent and operated in a manner that is
         not limited to the disposal of skim milk powder. Instead, the program should be
         expanded to include other dairy commodities, which also promote good nutrition and
         establish long-term commercial markets.[i]

     –   [i] U.S. Dairy Export Council. http://www.usdec.org/tradepolicy/schoolfeeding.htm
      Advertising

   Milk itself is a reflection of our institutionally racist culture. Not that the dairy industry is trying to deprive
    anyone of their product, but most non-white races cannot process lactose, the primary sugar in milk, yet
    the government markets milk to Asian, African and Latino-Americans to increase overall consumption.
    Because non-white people on average do not consume milk, this is a constantly emerging market.[i]

   The dairy industry is quite impressed with their marketing efforts toward Asians and Hispanics in particular.
    Cheese exports to Mexico in 2001 exceeded 2000 levels by 63 percent. "In China, where cheese is not a
    part of the traditional diet, dairy ingredient promotions led to a 69 percent increase in lactose exports and
    a 20 percent increase in whey exports."[ii]

     –   [i] U.S. Dairy Export Council. http://www.usdec.org/tradepolicy/schoolfeeding.htm
     –   [ii] USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Impact of Generic Fluid Milk.
         http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/prb/rtc_2002/chapter_3.pdf . Accessed 5/15/03.
     Advertising

   2001 brought with it the "got milk/Milk Mustache" campaign from DMI, which developed partnerships with
    Walt Disney and the National Basketball Association, among others, in order to capture child, teen, adult
    and athletic markets.

   These print ads appeared in more than 90 magazines, the largest buy of any beverage advertiser. The
    campaign also included medical advisory board members as spokespersons, billboards, transportation
    sector ads, consumer promotions and contests, hotlines about the benefits of milk, informational
    brochures, internet sites and college campus tours.[i]

     –   [i] Blisard, Noel. Advertising and What We Eat: The Case of Dairy Products. Economic Research Service, USDA.
      Advertising

   The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) conducted a census survey to
    determine the popularity of the Milk Mustache campaign.

   Three-fourths of the 1,500 Americans from 15 cities "like or love" the ads.
   Nearly 85 percent of the respondents "would like to have the benefits that go
    along with the Milk Mustache celebrity lifestyle,"[i] and would like to have their
    own ad.

   Overall, 60 percent of the respondents said that the ads get them to drink more
    milk.[ii] It is no wonder, considering the list of celebrities that have donned the
    mustache: former president Bill Clinton, despite his allergy to dairy products[iii];

     –   [iInternational Dairy Foods Association. Gallons and Gallons of Glamour: Survey Shows
         Americans Love the Milk Mustache Campaign!.
         http://www.idfa.org/news/gotmilk/2000/glamour.cfm. accessed 5/15/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] Cohen, Robert. Rugrats: An Endangered Species. The Dairy Education Board, 1998.
         http://www.notmilk.com/deb/110198.html. accessed 5/15/03.
         Advertising

   Spike Lee, WNBA basketball stars, tennis players Serena and Venus Williams, and model
    Tyra Banks have all done ads, when 95 percent of African-Americans are lactose
    intolerant…




   …and Larry King wore the mustache soon after recovering from triple bypass surgery. Would Larry King's
    doctors recommend him drinking milk? It would be hard to imagine considering the average American will
    consume enough cholesterol from dairy products to equal 53 strips of bacon daily![i]

     –   [i] Cohen, Robert. Rugrats: An Endangered Species. The Dairy Education Board, 1998.
         http://www.notmilk.com/deb/110198.html. accessed 5/15/03.
    Advertising


–   A current mustachioed ad features the
    Rugrats; cartoon children still in diapers, the
    eldest of the group being three years of age.

–   Robert Cohen, anti-dairy activist and
    executive director of the Dairy Education
    Board, notes that the proteins in milk products
    lead to diabetes in young children.

–   He quotes an article from Prevention and
    Medicine published in 1992, revealing that, "It
    has long been suspected that cow's milk
    proteins are a principle cause of diabetes in
    children, and a new report in the New England
    Journal of Medicine adds more support for this
    explanation...The journal article presented
    evidence implicating cows milk as the cause
    of diabetes in every one of 142 diabetic
    children in the study."[i]
      •   [i] Cohen, Robert. Rugrats: An Endangered Species. The Dairy
          Education Board, 1998.
          http://www.notmilk.com/deb/110198.html. accessed 5/15/03.
Advertising

   In the face of such blatantly misleading print, the Physicians Committee for Responsible
    Medicine (PCRM) filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission in 2000 claiming false
    advertising by the dairy industry.

   "It...explained why the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA'S) National Fluid Milk
    Processor Promotion Board, the dairy industry trade associations, and the advertising
    agency that developed the ad campaign should all be held accountable for what PCRM
    holds to be..."deceptive, and harmful advertising."[i]

   The complaint focused on the faulty science applied by the FDA which ignores issues such
    as hypertension, high saturated fat content, lactose intolerance in minority communities and
    that osteoporosis is not caused by a lack of calcium, but by calcium loss.[ii]

     –   [i] Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. PCRM Calls on the FTC to Investigate False and Misleading Health
         Claims in Milk Ads. http://www.pcrm.org/news/FTC_complaint.html. accessed 4/11/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
Advertising

   The FTC dismissed the claim in 2002 after a "'thorough review of relevant
    materials'" provided by the government (FDA) and other sources.

   The review noticed a consistent trend toward the importance of calcium in the
    diet, and that dairy products are cited as good sources of calcium. The review
    states that milk consumption, based on its calcium, is beneficial for bone growth
    and prevention of osteoporosis.[i]

   No mention is made of alternative sources of calcium, or the leaching effects of
    animal proteins. The emphasis is clearly on calcium, with added language that
    dairy products are a good source of calcium. The connection is not made to a
    point where one feels dairy products are necessary for a good diet. The review
    does not refute the fact that minority communities are most often intolerant of
    lactose, but states, quite simply, that they need calcium too.

     –   [i] Landau, David. Federal Trade Commission: No Action Needed on PCRM Petitions, 2002.
         http://www.idfa.org/news/gotmilk/2002/pcrm.cfm. Accessed 5/15/03.
Advertising




   In a similar law suit, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has challenged the
    California Milk Advisory Board's "Happy Cows" campaign, which features the slogan, "Great
    cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California."[i] The television and
    billboard campaign features computer generated cows grazing in green pasture below
    California's blue skies, talking about their idyllic lives.

     –   [i] Weise, Elizabeth. PETA: 'Happy Cows' Ad is a Lie. USA Today, 2002. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002 -12-11-happy-
         cows_x.htm. accessed 5/16/03.
Advertising

   The suit claims this is false advertising. In reality, most California cows never set foot in a
    pasture. Most cows spend their time in the feedlots, eating and walking to the milking areas
    of the farm.
Advertising

   Dairy advocate Jim Reynolds, professor
    of veterinary science at the University of
    California at Davis and chair of the
    American Association of Bovine
    Practitioners Animal Welfare Committee
    believes consumers have the ability to
    determine fact from fiction, even though
    most people have never seen a corporate
    dairy operation. He compares the ads to
    televised beer commercials:

   "I know when I buy a beer in a bar, I
    don't get two women in bikinis
    standing next to me."[i]

     –   [i] Weise, Elizabeth. PETA: 'Happy Cows' Ad is a
         Lie. USA Today, 2002.
         http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-12-11-
         happy-cows_x.htm. accessed 5/16/03.
     Health Effects: Consuming Dairy

   Our government promotes milk consumption to ensure the proper development of our children, to keep
    us strong as we move through life, and to promote bone strength when we age. In particular, there is a
    significant push to consume milk and other dairy foods for the calcium content to prevent osteoporosis
    and brittle bones. “By far the best source of calcium is dairy products. Not only is it a great source of
    calcium, but the lactose in milk seems to aid calcium absorption.”[i] In actuality, none of these are
    reasons to drink milk.

   There may not be a reason at all unless it is for taste, making milk, like its manufactured counterparts,
    luxury foods. Health effects from drinking milk are generally negative. The Physicians Committee for
    Responsible Medicine (PCRM) states that, “Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and
    can, in fact, be harmful to your health.”[ii] The PCRM report, „What‟s Wrong With Dairy Products‟ lists
    eight reasons to not drink milk, directly contradicting the reasons why the federal government promotes
    consumption. Harvard studies claim that osteoporosis prevention has no association with dairy. “In
    fact, increased intake of calcium from dairy products was associated with a higher fracture risk.” [iii]

     –   [i] Gilbert, Sue. Ask the Nutritionist: Boning Up on Calcium. iVillage.com.
         http://www.ivillage.com/food/experts/nutrition/articles/0,,244582_3280,00.html . Accessed 5/22/03.
     –   [ii] Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. What‟s Wrong with Dairy Products?
         http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html. 2001 accessed 5/16/03.
     –   [iii] ibid.
    Health Effects: Consuming Dairy

   Dr. Colin Campbell is the Director of the China-Oxford Cornell Study, “the largest study of diet and
    disease in medical history”.[i] He claims that increased consumption of animal calcium and protein
    causes degenerative disease. Countries with lower animal calcium intake levels have lower rates of
    bone fracture.[ii]

   Fear of osteoporosis in this country is legitimate: over 28 million Americans have been diagnosed, 80
    percent of whom are women. Victoria Toews, writing for the Vegetarian Times, rightly attributes
    lifestyle to the problem, including poor nutrition, smoking and exercise[iii], however these factors did
    not have any effect in a Harvard Nurses Study. That study included over 70 thousand women over 12
    years and found that women drinking three or more glasses of milk every day had no risk reduction
    versus their counterparts who did not consume any dairy products.[iv]

   Dairy products may be the worst way to try to increase calcium consumption. Although their calcium
    content is high, they also contain very high levels of animal protein. Proteins create acidic ash in the
    blood which is contrary to its natural, slightly alkaline state. The body removes calcium from the
    bones in order to obtain a balance.[v]

     –   [i] Occhipinti, Mark, M.S. Does Milk Really Do The Body Good? Calcium and Protein: A Mixture for Disaster.
         http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILK.HTM. accessed 4/22/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] Towes, Victoria Dolby. Strong to the Bone. Alt Health Watch Database. Vegetarian Times, Jul2001 Issue 287.
     –   [iv] Occhipinti, Mark, M.S. Does Milk Really Do The Body Good? Calcium and Protein: A Mixture for Disaster.
         http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILK.HTM. accessed 4/22/03.
     –   [v] ibid.
      Health Effects: Consuming Dairy

   Fats and sugars in milk can cause various types of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Type 1 diabetes
    is caused by dairy consumption. Hormones and excessive amounts of vitamin D can be toxic. “Milk
    proteins, milk sugar, fat, and saturated fat in dairy products may pose health risks for children and lead to
    the development of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and formation of athersclerotic plaques
    that can lead to heart disease.”[i]

   Recent research has shown that babies who were fed dried milk based formula now have higher blood
    pressure. Studies begun in the 1970‟s when breast feeding was on the decline in the United States and
    Great Britain, show higher blood pressure levels than breast-fed counterparts. “Babies who get breast
    milk are healthier, less likely to become obese and may have better brain function, studies have shown.” [ii]
    The adults fed cow-milk formula are taller however, according to the American Journal of Clinical
    Nutrition.[iii]

   This shows us more than the ill effects of dairy consumption: effects to human health are rarely immediate.
    Results for high blood pressure took 20 years. We have been drinking milk with synthetic growth
    hormone for seven so far.[iv]

     –   [i] Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. What‟s Wrong with Dairy Products?
         http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html. 2001 accessed 5/16/03.
     –   [ii] Fox, Maggie. Milk-Based Baby Formula Linked to Blood Pressure. Reuters News Article, May 22, 2003.
     –   [iii] ibid.
     –   [iv] Epstein, Samuel M.D. Monsanto‟s Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks...Cancer Prevention Coalition, July, 1998.
         http://www.psrast.org/bghcpc.htm. accessed 4/23/03.
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Hormones
   Hormones are injected into dairy herds to produce more milk, and increase profit. Analysis
    indicates the use of rBST (bovine somatotropin – same as rBGH bovine growth hormone)
    has led to a 10 to 15 percent increase in feed efficiency and an additional 5 to 15 pounds of
    milk per cow per day. Ultimately, this can lead to a $34.30 profit per cow per lactation after
    rBST costs are taken out.[i] These are not huge number, however if we are talking about a
    1,700 herd intensive dairy operation this equates to $58,310 per lactation.

   The additional milk production from growth hormones is, obviously, not a natural process,
    causing diseases like mastitis. Similarly, humans consuming additional hormones, whether
    naturally produced by the cow, or forced through supplements, causes adverse effects to
    our composition. Cancer is the primary result.

     –   [i] L.J. Butler. The Profitability of rBST on U.S. Dairy Farms. AgBioForum, Volume 2, Number 2, 1999.
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Hormones
   The first actor to understand is IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1. This polypeptide,
    consisting of 70 amino acids is produced by all mammals in the liver and tissues of the
    body.

   Human IGF-1 and bovine IGF-1 are identical. The hormone has very powerful and
    important effects on human development, even though its concentration is very low.
    Production is controlled by human growth hormone, “and peaks at puberty”. IGF-1 declines
    as we age, and by the time we are 70 our bodies should contain half the adult value.[i]
   Cell growth, both normal and cancerous, is stimulated by IGF-1. Stanford University
    research has shown promotion of both prostate and breast cells. “In 1995 researchers at
    the National Institutes of Health reported that IGF-1 plays a central role in the progression of
    many childhood cancers and in the growth of tumors in breast cancer, small cell lung cancer,
    melanoma, and cancers of the pancreas and prostate.[ii]

     –   [i] Larsen, Hans R., MSc Che. Milk and the Cancer Connection.
         http://mercola.com/fcgi/PrinterFrielndly.fcgi. Accessed 4/27/03.
     –   [ii] ibid
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Hormones
   Cancerous prostate cells are extremely sensitive to IGF-1. High blood levels of the
    hormone in men, 300 and 500 ng/mL versus normal levels of 100 to 185 ng/mL, has led to
    four times the risk of developing prostate cancer. Dr. Samuel Epstein‟s 1996 article in the
    International Journal of Health Sciences, “clearly warned of the danger of high levels of IGF -
    1 contained in milk from cows injected with synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBGH).” [i]

   Women with small increases of IGF-1 in their blood are seven times more likely to develop
    premenopausal breast cancer, making it one of the leading causes of breast cancer. Higher
    rates of breast cancer have been seen in people with gigantism, who have high IGF-1 levels.
    Primates injected with IGF-1 have shown breast enlargement and increases of breast tissue,
    indicating that, “IGF-1 is a potent stimulator of human breast cells in tissue culture.”[ii]

   Dr. Epstein notes that rBGH milk has now been on the market since 1995, despite its
    chemical and nutritional differences from normal milk proven by the International Journal of
    Health Services. The IGF-1 levels may be up to 10 times higher than in natural milk, and
    also more potent because it is not as strongly tied to its protein sequence.[i]

     –   [i] Epstein, Samuel M.D. Monsanto‟s Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks...Cancer Prevention
         Coalition, July, 1998. http://www.psrast.org/bghcpc.htm. accessed 4/23/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [i] ibid.
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Hormones
   Reviews conducted by Consumer Union indicate much of the same. In 1993, studies
    showed no increase in IGF-1 levels. That was done before Monsanto, the maker or rBGH,
    called Prosilac, released their 1987 study to the public. The question now is not if, but how
    much.

   “All four Monsanto studies, using the dose recommended by Monsanto to farmers, did show
    a statistically significant increase…the milk IGF-1 level from the 9 rBST-treated cows was
    higher than any of the levels of control cows.”[i] The authors quote an Elanco study that
    found, „”After somidobove injection, mean IGF-1 levels in the treated animals are always
    higher than those found in controls…Therefore, in this study an increase of approximately
    25% of the mean was found in the somidobove-treated animals.‟”[ii]

   IGF-1 content also increases with a high energy diet rich in protein, which all commercial
    cows receive.[iii]

     –   [i] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y. Potential Public
         Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production. Consumers
         Union, September 1997. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Hormones
   IGF-1 resists pasteurization and digestion, and is readily absorbed into intestine walls.[i] It
    is natural: children must be able to absorb IGF-1 readily to develop from breast milk. “On
    theoretical grounds alone, one might expect IGF-1 to survive digestion. Milk has been
    shown to contain a number of growth factors, including ones that stimulate growth or the gut.
   “Since newborns and young infants have the fastest growth rates, one would expect that
    any growth factors that a mother might give her infant would be found at their highest
    concentrations in the earliest milk in the lactation, when the infant is growing the fastest.
    Furthermore, for the mother‟s milk to be able to deliver growth factors that will affect the
    gastrointestinal tract, those growth factors must survive digestion in the stomach and reach
    the upper and lower intestines where they can have local stimulatory/growth effects.”[ii]


     [i] Epstein, Samuel M.D. Monsanto‟s Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks...Cancer
     Prevention Coalition, July, 1998. http://www.psrast.org/bghcpc.htm. accessed 4/23/03.
     [ii] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y.
     Potential Public Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy
     Production. Consumers Union, September 1997.
     http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm. accessed 4/28/03
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Hormones
   IGF-1 has its most potent, cancerous effects in tissues where its growth factor is most
    important: mammary, cardiovascular and respiratory cells, as well as skeletal and nervous
    systems and intestinal tracts. Children are the most afflicted. Osteosarcoma develops in
    the skeletal systems producing hard, painful masses; lung cancer may develop in the
    respiratory system; and angiogenisis occurs in blood vessels, literally transporting cancer
    cells throughout the body.[i]


     –   [i] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y. Potential Public
         Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production. Consumers
         Union, September 1997. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
     Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
           Hormones
   Other hormone implants have been implicated in the sexual maturation of children, including
    early breast development (male and female), “accelerated puberty, vaginal bleeding in five
    year old girls and other similar problems.”[i]

   Dr. Rodriguez studied Puerto Rican children exposed to hormone treatments from meat and
    dairy consumption. When the children were taken off of these foods, symptoms would
    regress. Regulation are less strict in Puerto Rico, and tropical countries need more
    hormones because cows are less productive in hot climates. Dr. Rodriguez writes that 97
    percent of breast abnormalities were due to whole milk consumption in infants, and milk,
    poultry and beef consumption in the older age group.[ii]

   Milk being most heavily marketed to our children makes the Rugrats ad criminal.

     –   [i] Leading Edge Research. Premature Sexual Maturation of Human Children. 1996. http://www.nisbett.com/news/h-
         news32.htm. accessed 5/22/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
         Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
               Hormones
   Hormone injections, especially concerning rBGH lead to mastitis and other diseases in cows, requiring
    additional antibiotic inputs, increasing resistance in bacteria, showing up in our dairy products[i], and further
    increasing cost to the farmer.

   After the FDA approved POSILAC, it required post approval monitoring. Studies showed an overall
    increase in mastitis rates of 32 percent. Variability between older and current studies indicate averages
    hide the seriousness of the problem. Sometimes herds are hit with 50 percent infection rates, while others,
    none at all.[ii] Studies conducted at the University of Vermont have proven that cows treated with rBGH
    require more antibiotic input than common mastitis, and treatment durations are longer.

   “As a condition of POSILAC approval in the U.S., the FDA required that Monsanto include a package insert
    which explicitly states that it will increase drug use: „”Use of POSILAC is associated with increasing
    frequency of use of medication in cows for mastitis and other health problems.”‟[iii]

     –   [i] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y. Potential Public Health Impacts of
         the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production. Consumers Union, September 1997.
         http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
     Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
           Hormones
   Although U.S. milk is tested for antibiotics, and „bad‟ milk is tossed out, many antibiotics are used that
    do not require detection. According to U.S. law, and antibiotic approved for human consumption may
    be used on dairy cows. The U.S. General Accounting Office in 1990 and 1992 said current testing
    cannot guarantee illegal residues will be prevented from entering the milk supply.

   A 12 year old boy, according to the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000, was admitted into a
    hospital because of poisoning related to a new strain of salmonella. The bacteria showed resistance to
    the drug Ceftriaxone that had been used both on humans and dairy cows.[ii]

     –   [i] Hansen, Michael Ph.D, Halloran, Jean M., Groth, Edward III Ph.D, Lefferts, Lisa Y. Potential Public Health
         Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production. Consumers Union, September 1997.
         http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm.
     –   [ii] Cohen, Robert. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance. Biotech Activist
         List, posted May 5, 2000. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
     Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
           Hormones
   The question must be asked, how is recombinant bovine growth hormone legal? It is simply a matter of
    deception.

   Prior to approval, Monsanto‟s 1989 study of cow herds showed incidences of mastitis. In order to
    guarantee acceptance, Margaret Miller, the top dairy expert at Monsanto, left for the FDA where she
    changed antibiotic standards. “She increased by 100 times the allowable level of antibiotics that
    farmers could put in milk.”[i]

   Like USDA‟s regulatory role conflicting with its advertising promotion, the FDA began acting as a
    promoter of rBGH. Dr. Richard Burrows, a standout in the Food and Drug Administration for many
    years was reprimanded and eventually fired for criticizing PROSILAC. Soon after, the FDA began
    promoting Monsanto‟s product before its approval.

     –   [i] Cohen, Robert. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance. Biotech Activist
         List, posted May 5, 2000. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
      Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
            Hormones
   They had FDA scientists print independent reviews in journals like Science, using incomplete,
    unpublished information. In particular, a study reportedly lasting only 90 days really lasted 180 days,
    thus altering the results. Similarly, according to testimony given by Robert Cohen before an FDA panel
    that amino acid changes caused by rBGH are insignificant.

   I quote Cohen, “It‟s safe because when you pasteurize milk, you destroy the hormone…To this day, FDA
    thinks…that 90% of the bovine growth hormone is destroyed by pasteurization…But what…two
    Monsanto scientists (did) was he pasteurized milk for 30 minutes at 162 oF, and when I read that – I said,
    wait a second, milk is pasteurized for 15 seconds at that temperature…They intentionally tried to destroy
    the hormone, they only destroyed 19 percent of it…”[i]

     –   [i] Cohen, Robert. Testimony before FDA Panel Nov. 30, 1999.
     Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
           Hormones
   There is more:

   Michael Taylor, the FDA Commissioner for Policy wrote rBGH labeling guidelines in 1994, stating that
    there was no difference between milk treated with rBGH and natural milk. It was later discovered he
    had been a lawyer with Monsanto for seven years.[i]

   When Bob Dole ran for President, he had Donald Rumsfeld as his Chief of Staff, who was the ex-
    president of Searle which was owned by Monsanto.

   Monsanto had a lawyer appointed to the Supreme Court by George Bush, Sr.: Clarence Thomas who
    was influential in George Bush, Jr.‟s election.

   Our Secretary of Agriculture was on the board of directors for a pharmaceutical company now owned by
    Monsanto.

   In John Ashcroft‟s bid for Congress he accepted more money from Monsanto than any other
    Congressional Representative, five times the amount of his opponent.[ii]
     –   [i] Cohen, Robert. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance. Biotech Activist
         List, posted May 5, 2000. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
     –   [ii] Cohen, Robert. How Big?. http://notmilk.com/pelican.html. accessed 5/16/03.
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Hormones
   Robert Cohen referred to a bill before Congress during his testimony that would have
    required labeling all products affected by genetic engineering. The bill died before the Dairy
    Livestock and Poultry Committee. Cohen, as he always does, researched the 12-member
    Committee: $711,000 was accepted by the gentlemen in donations from dairy interests;
    “four took money directly from Monsanto.”[i]

     –   [i] Cohen, Robert. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance.
         Biotech Activist List, posted May 5, 2000. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm. accessed 4/28/03 .
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Dioxin
   Dioxin, an industrial waste product that is categorized as a human carcinogen by the World
    Health Organization, accumulates in fatty tissues.

   Up to 96% of human exposure to dioxin occurs through consumption of animal products,
    including dairy.[i]

   Tracey Easthope, writing for the Ecology Center in Michigan points to a U.S. EPA report
    released on June 9, 2000 stating a minimum of 4,000 people in this country will develop
    cancer from dioxin.

     –   "Dioxin will cause an unknown number of children to be born with birth defects,
         suppressed immune systems and learning disabilities."[ii]

     The report is based on over 5,000 studies.[iii] This extremely harmful chemical is so
        prevalent that tracing its entry into the food system is difficult.
         [i] Organic Consumer Association. Dioxin in Meat, Fish, and Dairy Products. 2001.
     –   [ii] Easthope, Tracey. Even More Dangerous than Previously Thought. The Ecology Center.
         http://www.ecocenter.org/200009/dioxin.shtml. accessed 5/16/03.
     –   [iii] ibid.
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Dioxin
   Dioxins are a byproduct of burning; released even from natural events such as forest fires or
    volcanic eruptions. However, the high levels of dioxin in the environment today are due to
    burning of industrial and household waste; creating chlorinated herbicides and pesticides;
    and the bleaching of paper pulp.[i]

   The burning disposal of a similar, very harmful industrial product, polychlorinated biphenyls
    (PCBs), releases dioxin into the environment. They are also a byproduct of the manufacture
    of PCBs[ii] Dioxins have been released into the atmosphere and water systems and have
    contaminated our soils, especially in areas close to incinerators. When PCBs were being
    produced, as insulators and herb/pesticides, they contaminated water systems through
    runoff streams on farms, and by direct release from factories. Often, dioxins settle at the
    bottom of streams, clinging to solids. They last for very long time periods in the environment,
    as well as the body, adhering to fats which inhibits elimination.[iii]

     –   [i] Illinois Department of Health. Dioxin: Environmental Health Fact Sheet.
         http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/dioxin.htm. accessed 5/16/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
      Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
            Dioxin

   Dioxin enters the food system in a variety of ways, ranging from dust in the air which settles on plant matter
    to fish who may ingest contaminated soils. [i]

   The World Health Organization conducted a study of seven cities in Catalonia from June to August 2000 to
    determine dioxin intake. The study, after sampling concentrations in the food supply, determined that dairy
    products contributed 25 percent of the dioxin intake for residents. Fish and shellfish were the only food
    source with higher levels (31 percent).[i]

   The chemical bioaccumulates up the food chain because it is locked in fats. Generally, grazing animals like
    dairy cows are not greatly affected because dioxin is not taken up, readily, by vegetation.[ii] However,
    recent contamination may produce increased levels in vegetation for a short period of time. Harvested
    crops for feed and human consumption would then have higher levels of dioxin.[iii]

     –   [i] Staff report from Immunotherapy Weekly via NewsRx.com and NewsRx.net. Food Dioxins: Exposure from the diet in
         Spain is mostly from fish, shellfish, and dairy. April 16, 2003. Accessed 4/26/03.
     –   [ii] Illinois Department of Health. Dioxin: Environmental Health Fact Sheet.
         http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/dioxin.htm. accessed 5/16/03.
     –   [iii] UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) report produced for the European
         Commission DG Environment: Compilation of EU Dioxin Exposure and Health Data. Task 3 - Environmental Fate and
         Transport, 1999. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/dioxin/task3.pdf. Accessed 5/16/03.
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
      Dioxin
   According to a report released by the UK Department of the Environment, "the significance
    of root uptake from the soil requires further investigation, as there appear to be large
    differences between plant species."[iv]

   Despite evidence that crops do hold levels of dioxin, threatening feed and grazing condition,
    the governing leadership of the Kirkland Lake community in Canada (a leading dairy
    producer) is trying to attract the business of Bennett Environmental who wishes to build an
    incinerator to burn PCB- and dioxin-contaminated soil.

   The goal is to provide economic development, but the effect on the dairy business could
    devastate Kirkland Lake. Milk producer Parmalat Canada has suggested that it will not
    guarantee purchasing milk from the region if an incinerator is active. During the winter of
    2002, an entire dairy herd had to be slaughtered in France due to dioxin contamination
    linked to a local incinerator.[v]

     –   [iv] UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) report produced for the
         European Commission DG Environment: Compilation of EU Dioxin Exposure and Health Data. Task 3
         - Environmental Fate and Transport, 1999. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/dioxin/task3.pdf.
         Accessed 5/16/03.
     –   [v] Griffin, Britt. Scary Dairy: PCB Fears Freak Milk Producer. NOW Online Edition, Toronto, Canada.
         http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2002-07-25/news_story2.php. Accessed 5/16/03.
    Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
          Dioxin
   Dioxin in dairy products is a serious issue, and our ignorance regarding contamination is harming public
    health. Two fairly recent events illustrate the problem:

     –   In October 2002, PCBs, an indicator of dioxin, were found in feed produced by a Belgian
         company.[iii] The contamination was traced back to a fat rendered for feed, which had then been
         sold to feed manufacturers[ii] and two dairies.[iii] The level of contamination was five times higher
         than the acceptable level set by Belgium, "the only EU state the (sic) runs a programme that
         systematically monitors possible feed contaminations. It is the only country with a PCB
         standard."[iv]

     –   In a 2000 study sponsored by Junkscience.com, for the Dioxins 2000 conference, a sample of Ben
         & Jerry's ice-cream contained dioxin levels 2,200 above "the level of dioxin allowed in wastewater
         discharged into San Francisco Bay from the nearby Tosco oil refinery."[i] The study's authors,
         whose goal in this is to counter the EPA's lowering of acceptable dioxin exposure, claim 200
         additional cancers could occur from consuming ice-cream with dioxin levels consistent with this
         sample.[ii]


           •   [i] Lazaroff, Cat. Ben & Jerry's Dioxin Controversy. From Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,3802,00.html.
               Accessed via list serve http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ok-sustainability/2000-August/000092.html. Accessed 4/26/03.
           •   [ii] ibid.

           •   [ii] US Dairy Export Council Dioxin Fact Sheet. http://www.usdec.org/Regulatory/FactSheets/Dioxin.htm. accessed 4/28/03.
           •   [iii] BBC Monitoring via Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire. Belgian Food Agency Discovers PCB Contamination in
               Animal Feed Company. October 24, 2002. Accessed 4/26/03.
           •   [i] BBC Monitoring via Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire. Belgian Food Agency Discovers PCB Contamination in
               Animal Feed Company. October 24, 2002. Accessed 4/26/03.
           •   [iv] ibid.
Health Effects: Consuming Dairy
     Dioxin

Standards and ability to test samples are non-existent in countries like India, where
levels of dioxin are now being found in high amounts in breast milk and dairy products.
The Indian Express comments, "While the developed world has over the years managed
to reduce dioxin emissions through expensive measures and strict regulation, we do not
even have the facilities to test them."[i]

   [i] Indian Express. The Silent Killers are Here. Global News Wire, The Indian Express Online Media Ltd. April 24,
   2002.
Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy
Operations
   The problems associated with large-scale dairy operations can significantly impact the
    quality of life for its neighbors. The dairy's size, economic and information advantages allow
    it to pollute with little chance of penalty.

   California's Central Valley is a perfect example. Many of the dairies are polluters, infecting
    surface and groundwater, yet only four water inspectors are assigned to the 1600 dairies in
    the region. This amount of enforcement is staggering in terms of production. The Central
    Valley is the largest producer in California, the nation's leading state producer. 1.3 million
    cows reside in California and they produce 20 percent of our nation's consumption. The
    Central Valley is home to 891,000 cows, contributing "as much waste as 21 million people."
    One cow equates to 34 people, producing 114 pounds of waste per day and 22.5 tons in
    one year.[i]

   The Natural Resources Defense Council points to a 1996 water quality study conducted by
    the state's Water Resources Control Board which states that dairies and feeding lots pollute
    hundreds of square miles of groundwater. Bill Jennings of DeltaKeeper is quoted in the
    NRDC report. In his patrols of the San Joaquin river valley he has noticed that, "'Dairies are
    the single largest source of water pollution in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties.'"[i]

     –   [i] Natural Resources Defense Council. America's Animal Factories: How States Fail to Prevent
         Pollution from Livestock Waste. www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stcal.asp.
Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy
Operations
   Most of the drainage heads toward Los Angeles, and approximately 65% of the states
    population, killing many fish and plankton species along the way. Ammonia, fecal material
    and bacteria and parasites like cryptosporidium, which can be fatal to humans with
    compromised immune systems, pollute waterways.

   A cryptosporidium outbreak in 1993 affected the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin's water supply
    causing more than 400,000 people to become ill and approximately 100 death claims to be
    filed.[i] A study by the National Animal Health Monitoring System conducted from 1991-92
    indicates that 90% of dairy operations tested positive for Cryptosporidium.[ii]

   Nitrates are also present, and in high concentrations can cause "'blue baby syndrome,' a
    disease in which an infant's red blood cells are unable to carry sufficient oxygen.” [iii] Excess
    nutrient loads in groundwater often effect neighbors and to the dairy itself more directly
    because of the dependence on well water in rural areas. Central Valley farmers noticed
    calves aborting from drinking well water, and in LaGrange County, Indiana, miscarriages
    have been linked to well water contaminated by nitrates.[iv]

   [i] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large
    Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
   [ii] ibid.
   [iii] Natural Resources Defense Council. America's Animal Factories: How States Fail to Prevent Pollution
    from Livestock Waste. www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stcal.asp.
   [iv] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large
    Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy
Operations
   Odor and gas emissions acutely affect neighbors and regions in which large dairy farms
    operate. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO's) contribute vast amounts of
    odor and gas, especially in lagoon types of waste storage.

   Hydrogen sulfide can be released when lagoon waters are disturbed. "Hydrogen sulfide is a
    gas that can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation, diarrhea, hoarseness, sore throat, cough,
    chest tightness, nasal congestion, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, stress, mood
    alterations, sudden fatigue, headaches, nausea, sudden loss of consciousness, comas,
    seizures and even death."[i] 19 people have died from exposure to hydrogen sulfide
    emissions from manure pits.[ii]

   Earthen lagoons contain average amounts of hydrogen sulfide above 30 parts per billion. A
    study conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicated levels exceeding state
    regulations up to 4.9 miles away from feedlot lagoons. "In 2000, Kathy Norlien of the Health
    Department's Health Risk Assessment stated that 'without delay, actions should be taken to
    reduce the emissions for the protection and well-being of human health.'"[iii]
     –   [i] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy
         Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
     Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy
     Operations
   Odor for the local population is a constant threat, one that dairy cannot remediate effectively. The
    effects intense odor can have are literally sickening. Stress and "conditioned responses" are common,
    and asthma conditions are irritated. William Weida of the Global Resource Action Center for the
    Environment quotes several sources in regard to odor effects on the human condition. One article
    states that, "In the case of humans, the immediate physiological stresses produced by odors can cause
    loss of appetite and food rejection, low water consumption, poor respiration, nausea, and even vomiting,
    and mental perturbations. In extreme cases, offensive odors can lead to deterioration of personal and
    community well-being, interfere with human relations, deter population growth and lower its socio-
    economic status."[i]

   In another article pertaining to asthma, Weida found that, "Many patients complain that some odors
    worsen their asthma...A survey of 60 asthmatic patients revealed a history of respiratory symptoms in
    57 on exposure to one or more common odors. Odors are an important cause of worsening asthma.
    From a practical standpoint, sensitive asthmatic patients should be advised to eliminate odors from their
    environment as much as possible.[ii]

   Workers are acutely affected as well, suffering chronic respiratory problems, including asthma, due to
    inhalation of dust and toxic gasses.[iii] Three immigrant workers in California‟s Merced County died by
    inhaling gases that were pumped into storage containers housing fecal waste from dairy farms. The
    toxic fumes rendered the Mexican men unconscious, causing them to collapse into manure slurry.[iv]
     –   [i] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy
         Operations. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
     –   [iv] Romney, Lee. Death of Three Immigrant Workers Dog State‟s Dairy Industry. Los Angeles Times. 2002.
         Environmental and Health Effects of Dairy
         Operations
   Ammonia drastically effects air quality, agitates respiratory illness and is abundant in lagoons due to the
    114 pounds of excrement produced by each cow per day. According the NRDC, ammonia may absorb
    dust, drawing it into the lungs.[i]

   Methane, perhaps the most devastating of greenhouse gasses, is produced by dairy cows at twice the
    rate of beef cattle in feedlots.[ii] According to the EPA, emissions increased 53 percent from 1990-98,
    and the agency believes that the growth of hog and dairy farms are the cause.[iii]

   Harmful viruses and bacteria are excreted and washed into lagoons. In addition to Cryptosporidium,
    Campylobacter, salmonella, E. coli, girardia and several other organisms are present in dairy cow fecal
    matter.[iv] In May 2000, "1,300 cases of gastroenteritis occurred and six people died" in Ontario. "The
    Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care determined that the likely source was cattle manure runoff
    from a farm adjacent to a drinking water supply well."[v]

   Milk that is found to have antibiotic contamination is not safe for human consumption, and must be
    disposed of, however, common practice is to feed this milk to dairy calves because of its nutritional value
    and the economic savings to the farmer.[i] This practice, although economical does contribute to
    antibiotic resistance, and continues to place the antibiotic into waste streams.[ii]

     –    [i]Fritha Langford, Uri Burstyn, Lorne Fisher, Jim Shelford and Dan Weary. 2003. Feeding Waste Milk to Calves and Antibiotic Resistance.
          21st Annual Western Canadian Dairy Seminar, Red Deer, AB March 11-14, 2003.
     –    [ii] ibid.
     –    [i] ibid.
     –    [ii] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy Operati ons. Global
          Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
     –    [iii] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural
          Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
     –    [iv] Weida, William. A Citizen's Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated Dairy Operations. Global
          Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2000.
     –    [v] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Natural
          Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
Lagoons & Sprayfields

   Livestock production has become industrialized, functioning in typical capitalist fashion:
    growth and profit as the only goal. Similar to the nuclear industry, waste output has become
    an incredible problem requiring specialized treatment programs that drain dollars away from
    profit margins.

   Rather than address this issue, large-scale dairy operations have constantly sought
    exemptions from pollution regulations by claiming their business is necessary for community
    development.

   The lagoon and sprayfield system of waste removal has become the norm, and the effects
    on the local and regional environment consistently remove capital from communities by
    subjecting the population to the health problems listed above and also decreasing the
    property value of the surrounding area, driving out all but those that cannot afford to
    relocate. This is a necessary evil for the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO's),
    however, the lagoon and sprayfield systems extend the evil beyond the boundaries of the
    farm into our clean water and air supply.
     Lagoons & Sprayfields

   Animal waste, including wash water (used to clean the cows, their pens and the milking equipment) are
    collected into massive open pits reaching "a size as great as six to seven-and-a-half acres and can contain
    as much as 20 to 45 million gallons of wastewater."[i] The liquefied animal waste is then sprayed onto
    cropland via sprinklers as a fertilizer. This amounts to 8.2 billion pounds of waste from the cattle industry
    in one year, an amount well beyond the carrying capacity of our agricultural fields. Much of this waste runs
    off into our ground and surface water supplies.[ii]

   The accumulative effects of manure runoff on waterways can deteriorate aquatic life and harm human
    health. The nitrates and phosphates that fertilize soil harm water quality by overloading. Because the
    dairy industry has moved so far beyond carrying capacity, nutrient overloads are inevitable. The NRDC
    report, Cesspools of Shame, highlights impacts beyond drinking water. Algae, which can be toxic,
    proliferate when exposed to high nutrient levels, killing off fish populations, altering coastal fisheries,
    eutrophicating waterways and changing the composition of soils.
     –   [i] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. Nat ural
         Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
    Lagoons and Sprayfields
   The report lists Pfiesteria piscicida as a particularly harmful type of algae that has killed over one billion
    fish off the coast of North Carolina, a state infamous for its hog farm operations which use the same
    lagoon and spray techniques as massive dairy operations. Neil Julian Savage, a resident living near
    Brown‟s hog farm in North Carolina described the situation to the NRDC, “‟On several occasions, Brown‟s
    has over-sprayed so much hog waste next to my property that, during heavy rains, the rainwater and the
    waste that was carried in it actually ran, in large amounts, right onto my land. A number of times this
    waste has ponded in my front yard. The waste has come up to my front porch, surrounded my drinking
    well, and run past my house onto what used to be my farm fields…We are afraid to drink the water from
    our well.‟”[iii]

   Minerals and heavy metals are used in dairy farming to promote growth, and they may also accumulate in
    the environment. Feed additives include arsenic and selenium, as well as copper and zinc. “According to
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, concentrations of selenium in lagoons and waste storage pits may be
    ten times the level that is safe for aquatic life.”[i]

   As the metals bioaccumulate, aquatic populations may be harmed, and may also enter our aquifers via
    groundwater. Metals can cause cancer in humans, as well as vascular disease, liver dysfunction and
    anemia. The EPA does not regulate metals from animal waste.[ii]

   Neil Julian Savage, a resident living near Brown‟s hog farm in North Carolina described the situation to
    the NRDC, “‟On several occasions, Brown‟s has over-sprayed so much hog waste next to my property
    that, during heavy rains, the rainwater and the waste that was carried in it actually ran, in large amounts,
    right onto my land. A number of times this waste has ponded in my front yard. The waste has come up to
    my front porch, surrounded my drinking well, and run past my house onto what used to be my farm
    fields…We are afraid to drink the water from our well.‟”[iii]

     –   [i] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and
         Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
Lagoons & Sprayfields

   When lagoons spill over like the Brown‟s
    hog lagoons, or breach their dams, the
    effect equates to a toxic waste spill.

   NRDC statistics indicate spills occur with
    more than coincidental regularity:
    “Between 1990 and 1994, 63 percent of
    Missouri‟s factory farms suffered spills; In
    1997, animal feedlots were responsible
    for 2,391 spills of manure in Indiana;
    From 1995 to 1998, there were at least
    1,000 spills or other pollution incidents at
    livestock feedlots in ten states, and 200
    manure-related fish kills that resulted in
    the death of 13 million fish.”[i]
     –   [i] Marks,Robbin. Cesspools of Shame:
         How Factory Farm Lagoons and
         Sprayfields Threaten Environmental
         and Public Health. Natural Resources
         Defense Council and the Clean Water
         Network. 2001.
      Lagoons & Sprayfields


   During February of 2001, Inwood Dairy in Illinois dumped two million gallons of waste into a
    ravine. The dams burst and emptied the contents into Kickapoo Creek. At the time Inwood
    was under court order to keep their 40-million gallon lagoon from overflowing. Prior to the
    injunction, Inwood employees were spraying waste onto saturated fields and attempting to
    use sandbags to hold back the lagoon.[ii] For its poor management, Inwood paid a fine of
    only $50,000 and the state paid $300,000 for technology Inwood could use to breakdown
    the waste and produce electricity from the gas.[iii]

   Karen Hudson, a community activist living near the farm expressed the outrage neighbors
    feel when industry forces its pollution onto residents, “There is local control (in Illinois) for
    low-level nuclear waste and garbage. But when it comes to 50 million gallons of raw urine
    and feces a fourth of a mile from my house, we don‟t have a voice. And there is no
    difference…In fact, I think I‟d rather live next to a garbage dump…At least it‟s more
    regulated and my county board can control and decide if it is safe.”[iv]

     –   [ii] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and
         Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
     –   [iii] Bischoff, Laura A. Illinois Megafarm Neighbors Sound Alarm on Waste. Dayton Daily News. 2002.
     –   [iv] ibid.
     Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   Large-scale dairies containing massive feedlots are strictly for-profit organizations that wish for little or
    no community influence and work toward instilling that in their region of influence. The dairy wishes to
    limit its work force, and limit output into the community.[i]

   They have found their most choice location in rural areas that have little or no ability to attract business
    that provide greater economic development. Often these regions have already experienced a downturn
    in their agricultural sector.[ii]

   Our national economy has shifted from agriculture to service industries, leaving the rural areas behind
    to conglomerate in cities where access to markets is much easier. Growth and high salaries are located
    in cities. The banking industry has become deregulated as well, raising interest rates for borrowers.
    Since the 1970‟s this has let to out-migration to metropolitan areas.[iii]

   Rural areas wishing to develop their economies would like to attract manufacturing and service sector
    industries, however, manufacturers look for areas with established service areas, i.e., full service
    economies to support their business. Rural agricultural regions become isolated by their lack of
    appropriate infrastructure making the communities susceptible to declines in income and poverty.[i] As
    this occurs, communities lose political power and ability to resist outside influences that, as a community
    searching for positive living conditions, they would normally try to repel.
     –   [i] Weida, William. Pollution Shopping in Rural America. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2001.
     –   [i] Weida, William. A Summary of the Regional Economic Effects of CAFOs. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2001.
     –   [ii] Weida, William. Pollution Shopping in Rural America. Global Resource Action Center for the Environment. 2001.
     –   [iii] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development



   The process by which a mega- dairy may occupy community land is complicated and
    involves many social, economic and corporate factors. First, no community wishes to be
    poor, and no community wishes for a harmful, polluting industry to be located next to their
    homes. The dairy industry and its Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO) rarely benefit the
    communities that in occupies. It seeks isolation to avoid community interaction because the
    industry profiteers know that they will inflict harm. Research has been performed over the
    past sixty years that illustrates this point, beginning in the 1940‟s with Walter Goldschmidt‟s
    study of two California agricultural towns.[i]

   Godschmidt began his work at the request of the U.S. Senate in order to research the
    relationship between a communities‟ economic power and its well being. He compared and
    contrasted Arvin and Dinuba, California respectively. “Arvin was a community dominated by
    farms substantially larger than those found in Dinuba, the community surrounded by smaller
    farms.”[i] The two communities remained similar in many crucial ways such as the
    population, values, customs, and agricultural production.

     –   [i] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
     –   [i] Lyson, Thomas; Welsh, Rick. Anti-Corporate Farming Laws, the “Goldschmidt Hypothesis” and
         Rural Community Welfare”. 2001.
    Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   In the study, Goldschmidt found living conditions to generally be better in Dinuba. “The town
    supported a large population per volume of agricultural sales and there was greater availability
    of running water, electricity, radio and telephones. Schools and parks were numerous and of
    higher quality…Government decision-making was more democratic in that residents had an
    impact on community welfare issues through local popular elections while in Arvin, much
    decision making was left in the hands of community officials. Social participation was greater in
    Dinuba, as indicated by the number of civic and social organizations, community newspapers
    and churches.”[i]

   The economies differed significantly. Arvin‟s primary income earners were laborers, but
    Dinuba‟s income came from farmers and white-collar workers. Also, Dinuba‟s non-farm
    economy supported service industries, retail stores and trade at a level twice that of Arvin.
    Goldschmidt concluded that small-scale farming produced the middle class with income stability
    that did not vary greatly between individuals, and fostered community involvement.

   Large farm communities promoted low wage jobs, employing individuals with no ties to the
    community beyond their employment. “Finally, the greater number of lower class individuals in
    Arvin was the major factor related to its „poverty of social institutions, lower level of living, lower
    education, lower community loyalty and higher population turnover.‟”[ii] The situation is current
    as of the publication of Ms. Labao‟s Locality and Inequality in 1990.[iii]

     –   [i] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   The quality of life in Arvin decreased due to large farms, like large sized dairy operations.
    Because of a decrease in socioeconomic status, Arvin is less likely to escape its “rut” and
    expand its economy.

   Labao references a study completed in 1988 by Falk and Lyson referring to industry
    movement in the South during the 1970‟s. Technologically sophisticated jobs became
    located near cities, while the rural poor, mostly black citizens continued to cling to low-wage
    employment. Most of the black farmers had been historically displaced by the
    mechanization of agriculture and forced into wage labor. In 1930, African-Americans
    operated 14 percent of farms in the South. By 1982 there were only two percent.[i] Without
    the access to capital, bank loans, etc. that have been historically (and still are) denied to
    African-Americans, it has been nearly impossible for them to compete technologically.
     –   [i] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
    Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development
   Another example of Goldschmidt‟s hypothesis is Chaves County, New Mexico. The state
    itself boasts 170 dairies, nearly 300,000 cows, and the largest average herd size in the
    nation at 1700 cows per dairy. In a state dominated by extremely large corporate dairies,
    Chavez County is the cream rising to the top. The county has the most dairies in New
    Mexico, is the top producer in the state and tenth in the nation.[i] Median family income is
    $34,700, which is $14,100 less than the state average, and $15,500 less than the national
    average. The Hispanic population is above average in Chaves County.[ii]
     –   [i] Dairy Producers of New Mexico. FAQ. http://www.nmdairy.org/faq1.htm
     –   [ii] New Mexico Economic Development Department. County Statistics.
         Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   Technological advancement has fostered vertical integration among intensive dairy operations which
    allow them to out-compete small scale producers.

   Technological advancement, although requiring investment initially, allows producers to cut costs such as
    labor. Farming is extremely competitive, and those producers that can cut production cost also cut market
    prices making their product more enticing to the consumer. Income falls, so production must increase,
    requiring additional technology input. Large producers then set the pace for the treadmill and gobble up
    competitors that cannot keep up. Farmers who were once autonomous essentially become wage
    laborers, producing for conglomerates and bound to the conglomerate for resources.[i]

   The dairy industry is deceptive. Most Intensive Livestock Operations like hog and poultry producers are
    corporations, and ownership is easily determined. The Dairy industry has manipulated a tool once used
    by dairy farmers to aid market competition: cooperatives. Seen from the outside, dairy farms seem
    autonomous, however, the contract arrangements between the cooperatives today reflect vertical
    integration in the dairy industry. The Dairy Producers of New Mexico tout that its individual dairies are
    family owned, but product is distributed by co-operatives.[ii] Land O Lakes is a dairy cooperative. “Ten
    cooperatives produced half the nation‟s milk in 1998.”[iii]
     –   [i] Lobao, Linda M. Locality and Inequality. 1990.
     –   [ii] Dairy Producers of New Mexico. FAQ. http://www.nmdairy.org/faq1.htm
     –   [iii] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and
         Public Health. Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   This benefits the cooperatives immensely in that lagoon breaches, antibiotic contamination
    and other environmental costs become the burden of the individual producer not the
    cooperative.[iv]

   Land O‟ Lakes said, in 1993, that it expected 500 locals to mere in 5 years.[v]

   Suiza Foods, self-proclaimed largest fluid milk processor, made a meteoric rise to the top. It
    entered the dairy business in 1993 by purchasing Suiza Dairy Corporation. By 1996 the
    corporation made 39 additional dairy acquisitions. “Suiza received considerable attention
    when it formed a joint venture with the cooperative Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), called
    Suiza Dairy Group…Although it is called a joint venture, Suiza owns 67 percent of Suiza
    Dairy Group‟s stock (and) manages the operation…With the combining of these two firms,
    they control 70 percent of the fluid milk processing and distribution in 13 Northeastern
    states.”[vi]
     –   [iv] Marks, Robbin. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health.
         Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. 2001.
     –   [v] Hendrickson, Mary; Heffernan, William; Howard, Philip and Heffernan, Judith. Consolidation in
         Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System. Dept. of
         Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. 2001.
     –   [vi] ibid.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   Vertical integration in agriculture allows the monoliths to dominate the entire food-value
    chain. “Vertical Integration formally connects retailers back to the production and
    processing stages of the food system.”[i] Kroger and Safeway now operate their own dairy
    processing facilities. These companies are now seeking long term contracts to ensure
    national retailing capacity. “Most processors now see the retail firms as their customer.” [ii]

   Like the technology treadmill, labor is consistently removed from production, reducing the
    need for local input and, vice versa, a need to economically support social institutions.

   According to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), vertical
    integration has four primary benefits:
     1.   costs are lowered by improving productivity,
     2.   it insures “quality” from milk production to manufactured goods,
     3.   markets and risks are stabilized, and finally,
     4.   consumer demand maybe more quickly addressed.[iii]

     –    [i] Hendrickson, Mary; Heffernan, William; Howard, Philip and Heffernan, Judith. Consolidation in
          Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System. Dept. of
          Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. 2001.
     –    [ii] ibid.
     –    [iii] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Vertical Coordination of Agriculture in Farming-
          Dependent Areas. www.cast-science.org. (2001).
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   Production contracts like those between dairy cooperatives and producers entrench the
    cooperatives‟ monopoly powers. The contractor will supply feed, cows, antibiotics,
    management organization, practice guidelines and set production levels.[i]

   Efficiency through vertical coordination creates decreasing commodity supply prices, yet
    does nothing to lower manufactured product prices for cheese, ice cream, yogurt or butter.

   A price scissor occurs, binding the producer to wage labor conditions by keeping milk prices
    low, but increasing profits for the corporate-owned cooperative, which benefits by increasing
    demand for processed commodities.

   The report by CAST actually recommends this process for the producer because the
    contract will be recognized by lending institutions. It states that, “Many lenders are more
    willing to lend to construct production facilities for a low-income producer with a multiyear
    production contract than to an independent producer perennially subject to market volatility.
    Thus, for many farming-dependent areas of the nation, the most promising option for job and
    income expansion is through production contracts, which need not imply megafarms, factory
    farms, or environmental degradation.”[ii]

     –   [i] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Vertical Coordination of Agriculture in Farming -
         Dependent Areas. www.cast-science.org. (2001).
     –   [ii] ibid.
     Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development
   Here arises a key tool with which mega-dairies can occupy communities that may have low levels of
    education and socio-economic resources. By reading the CAST statement, a producer would actually
    think improvements to her farm may improve access to the market, however, the producer will be able
    to produce more milk with less labor cost, driving down price and removing jobs from her community.

   Profits will not greatly increase because she is still absorbing environmental, remedial costs, and paying
    prices for inputs like feed and medicine that are set by the cooperative. Farm values for general
    agricultural output in 1997 were $120 million, but production costs exceeded $189 billion, according to
    Tad Williams of the Americans for Democratic Action Fund.

   In reality, “Many farmers are unable to compete in a market where costs rise continually for what they
    must buy, like seeds, fertilizer and equipment, while prices for what they produce are kept low by the
    small number of processors who control the market.”[i] The minimum number of hectares needed to
    sustain a living increases because profits per area stay low. Land then conglomerates into the hands of
    wealthy corporations who have the ability to purchase large tracts of land.

   “They overcome the low profit per hectare trap precisely by owning vast areas which add up to good
    profits in total, even if they represent very little on a per hectare basis.”[ii]

     –   [i] Williams, Tad. The Corruption of American Agriculture. Americans for Democratic Action Fund. (no date
         provided).
     –   [ii] Rosset, Peter M. Policy Breif No. 4: The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture. Food
         First/the Institute for Food and Development Policy and Transmational Institute. September 1999.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

                            As Median Farm Size increases
                             (4 to 6,709 acres), average net out
                             put drops from $1,400/acre to
                             $12/acre.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   Money is made through subsidies. Aid comprised nearly half of total farm income in 2000
    based on programs to stop farmers from going bankrupt due to low prices.[i]

   The 1996 Farm Bill shifted subsidy purpose from offsetting market changes and disaster
    potential to income payments to mesh with international trade agreements. Taxpayer
    money is being used to aid conglomeration.

   “A recent study of federal farm data indicates that farm aid has gone to a host of individual
    and institutional investors, for whom farming is at most a minor sideline. Almost 63 percent
    of the $27 billion in federal farm subsidies doled out in 2000 went to just 10 percent of
    America‟s farm owners, including multimillion-dollar corporations and government agencies.

   “Basing subsidy payments on farm acreage rather than financial need means that some of
    the wealthiest members of Congress received farm aid from farm programs they voted for.
    At least 20 Fortune 500 companies and more than 1,200 universities and government farms,
    including state prisons, received checks from the federal programs touted as a way to prop
    up needy farmers.”[ii]
     –   [i] Mittal, Anuradha and Kawaai, Mayumi. Backgrounder: Freedom to Trade? Trading Away American Family Farms. Food
         First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. 2001. http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2001/f01v7n4.html.
         accessed 5/1/03.
     –   [ii] ibid.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO) like large-scale dairies control a distinct information
    advantage over the rural community. “The party with the least information about costs is
    most likely to have those costs shifted in its direction.”[i]

   The dairy will attempt to hide its profit only goals with promises of jobs and positive
    economic impacts for the community. The dairy operation creates and proposes the
    contract, forcing the community representatives to decipher its meaning. “Such a contract is
    likely to increase the profits of the ILO by shifting the operating costs of the ILO to the
    closest residents around its operation.”[ii]

   Considering that the community has already been marginalized to some extent, community
    officials will most likely be looking for only what they want to see: dollar signs, and possibly
    for their own pockets. A community being approached by the massive dairy will most likely
    have little democratic, community input as Goldschmidt noticed in the case of Arvin,
    California.

     –   [i] Weida, William. A Summary of the Regional Economic Effects of CAFOs. Global Resource Action
         Center for the Environment. 2001.
     –   [ii] ibid.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   Kern County, California is a major world dairy producing area, and the community‟s battle
    with industry expansion illustrates how industry wins over officials, but not necessarily the
    residents.

   In 2002, an additional 2,800-cow dairy was added to an abused landscape. The Planning
    Commission approved the dairy, stating, “They have jumped through every hoop we have
    asked them”, yet public opinion greatly outweighed another dairy.[i] The region has some of
    the worst air quality standards in the United States.

   Miss Tulare County, a representative of the state‟s largest dairy producing region drew the
    following question during her pageant interview: “What do we have too much of in the United
    States?” Her answer was a slap in the face for the dairy promoters: “In the United States
    right now, I think we have too much pollution, because not enough people are aware of the
    problems that will occur to the ozone layer if we do not start controlling the pollution now. I
    know here in Tulare County, they are working very hard to reduce the risk of pollution
    increasing by limiting the number of dairies. That would be great to keep the United States
    and the people in the United States healthy.”[ii]

     –   [i] McHenry, Davin. Kern County, Calif., Planning Commission Approves Disputed Dairy. The
         Bakersfield Californian. 2002.
     –   [ii] Griswold, Lewis. Miss Tulare Sounds Off on Dairies. The Fresno Bee. 2003.
Corporate Dairy Production and Rural Development

   According to the USDA, much of what Goldshmidt found is true. Peter Rosset of Food First,
    a progressive think tank promoting sustainable agriculture, cites the Department of
    Agriculture‟s National Commission on Small Farms. The commission released a report in
    1998 listing the public virtues of small farms:

     – Small farms, diverse in ownership, cropping systems, culture and traditions
       contribute to biodiversity and the rural landscape.
     – They manage natural resources in ways that are beneficial to society;
       investment in small farms will improve the nation‟s natural resources.
     – Decentralized ownership produces economic opportunity for the region.
       Farmers are more likely to rely on the community for supplies.
     – Small farmers have a connection with food, and communities around farms
       have a connection with the farmer.[i]

     –   [i] Rosset, Peter M. Policy Breif No. 4: The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture.
         Food First/the Institute for Food and Development Policy and Transmational Institute. September
         1999.
The World Bank and Dairy Production

   As stated earlier, most races representing many ethnicities across the globe cannot digest
    dairy products. The World Bank, however, believes that dairy production can be a viable
    way to alleviate poverty in developing countries.
   Contrary to the research conducted by Goldschmidt and his contemporaries, the World
    Bank states that, “A focus on poverty reduction and increasing privatization are among the
    changes that may affect livestock development…”[i] A 2001 report on Livestock
    Development makes generalizations that appear to benefit the rural poor, but the one-sided
    approach shows little actual concern for the people.

   For example, The World Bank says that studies show children in Kenya, Mexico, Brazil,
    Nicaragua and China were taller, due to increased animal fat and protein consumption.[ii]
    The question remains, at what cost?

   Intensive livestock production will seriously deplete water and land resources, not to
    mention the other ill health effects that children may suffer just to be taller. Technological
    inputs like vaccines are recommended, and “judicious management of species
    composition”,[iii] in terms of wild life surrounding the farms indicate western investment (and
    expected returns), and removal of species that may compromise biodiversity in some areas.

     –   [i] DeHaan, Schillhorn, Brandenburg, et al. Livestock Development: Implications for Rural Poverty, the
         Environment, and Global Food Security. Directions in Development. The World Bank. 2001.
     –   [ii] ibid.
     –   [iii] ibid.
The World Bank and Dairy Production

   Most recommendations from the World Bank revolve around the same development models
    used in the United States. Vertical integration and co-operatives are seen as beneficial in
    purchasing feed, animals and technological advancement.

   The industrial system is suggested as a way to preserve biodiversity by intensifying land
    use. The public sector is given the opportunity to try and mitigate environmental problems.
    Environmental costs, according to the report, should be included in price.[i]

   These recommendations are based simply on market performance and increasing debt, not
    the real lives of communities. Vertically integrating dairy production in developing countries
    will inevitably make them dependent upon corporate interests for feed, antibiotics, pollution
    control technology, animals, and hormones. Whatever autonomy still exists will be wiped
    away, making farmers into wage labor with little opportunity for individuals to increase their
    capital.

   “Trends suggest that six or fewer global food retailers will evolve over the next few years.
    Most of them will likely be European-based transnational firms.”[ii]
     –   [i] DeHaan, Schillhorn, Brandenburg, et al. Livestock Development: Implications for Rural Poverty, the
         Environment, and Global Food Security. Directions in Development. The World Bank. 2001.
     –   [ii] Hendrickson, Mary; Heffernan, William; Howard, Philip and Heffernan, Judith. Consolidation in
         Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System. Dept. of
         Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. 2001.
Conclusion

   Capitalist models of production are inconsistent with the carrying capacity of the earth, yet
    this is ignored in the consuming goal to out compete and accumulate wealth. It would be
    easy to replace dairy in this paper with any other resource we humans use.

   Without curbing consumption rates environmental disasters will continue to occur,
    destroying human health and draining resources away from communities trying to escape
    from poverty. Poverty will always exist as long as capital can be hoarded by a few large
    corporations who will certainly never relinquish anything or change their practices unless
    forced to do so. It is important for the public to decide what type of food production system
    we prefer, based on all sound data, and design policies to implement a new system.[i] The
    public needs to have the ability to determine who produces our food and how it is produced.
    It is our bodies, our nourishment, our communities that are affected.

     –   [i] Hendrickson, Mary; Heffernan, William; Howard, Philip and Heffernan, Judith. Consolidation in
         Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System. Dept. of
         Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. 2001.
Conclusion

   The American people agree. In a recent study from North Carolina State entitled, „Food
    from Our Changing World: the Globalization of Food and How Americans Feel About It‟,
    researchers found:
      – 71 percent would pay more for food grown locally, as well as pay more for foods that
         do not harm the environment; and
      – 70 percent trust farmers for food safety recommendations versus 20 percent trusting
         elected officials and 11 percent trusting business executives.
      – 77 percent want government policies to help family farms.
      – Only 26 percent are willing to eat biotech foods, and most of those surveyed are
         undecided about their safety.
      – 92 percent surveyed feel genetically modified foods should be labeled.[i]

   The dairy industry‟s polluting, intrusive production of a product no human needs to consume,
    aided by a racist marketing campaign instituted by the federal government is a perfect
    example of how humanity will consistently take a back seat to corporate desires.

     –   [i] Wimberley, Ronald; Reynolds, William Neal; Vander Mey, Brenda, et al. Food From Our Changing
         World: The Globalization of Food and How Americans Feel About It. North Carolina State University,
         2003.

								
To top