About 99 percent of U.S. meat comes from industrial farms. I am by no means a vegetarian, but I propose there are significant moral, environmental and health costs associated with these contemporary methods. More traditional, ranch-style farming serves as an alternative to large-scale industrial methods, and its practices better account for animal interests. The mass production of meat and dairy is a complex business, but even a brief look at the pros and cons of each model suggests that ranch-style farming is preferable for an ethically- and environmentally-conscious public.
The moral problem boils down to the fact that animals are thinking and feeling creatures, yet they are treated as inanimate objects. Animals are often packed in filthy, crowded buildings without sunlight, fresh air or grass. They are processed with maximum efficiency, ensuring a brief, miserable life for them and cheap meat for us. The minimally-enforced Human Method of Slaughter Act (passed in 1958), recognized the need for animals to receive a merciful death. Unfortunately, the law does little to recognize a need for a merciful life.
In contrast to industrial farms, more traditional farms acknowledge animals’ needs for space, nutrients and outdoor ranges. Animal sentience is not treated as an inconvenient and irrelevant idea, but as a factor worth significant consideration. Cattle are fed grass rather than forced to eat an unnatural diet of corn and antibiotics. They have space to roam and experience sunlight and fresh air. For the cost of decreased “efficiency,” ranch farms practice a more ethical system of business. If the law were to enforce these standards of decency, industrial farming methods would need to change drastically.
The largest — and perhaps only — advantage that industrial farming holds over traditional methods are economic. American factory farming is a monetary success. For the past 80 years, productivity has steadily risen, causing lower food prices and greater availability for consumers. But are the economic gains so significant that industrial farming reform is undesirable? If ethical considerations do not convince American lawmakers and consumers, then environmental and health factors could be the catalyst.
To fully assess the costs and benefits of industrial and traditional farming methods, we must consider two additional key factors: environmental and health costs. Ranch-style farms utilize a more holistic method of production: animal waste fertilizes the soil, which grows the crops, which then feed the animals. Referred to as a closed ecological loop, this sustainable process is incompatible with the globalized methods of industrial farming, which often leave a dangerous excess of animal waste and chemical fertilizers. And because cattle are fed on an unnatural diet of corn, they produce abnormally high levels of the gas methane—a greenhouse gas emission 23 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. Traditional methods simply avoid such waste and pollution.
If our extensive moral and environmental obligations do not convince, there is also industrial meat’s risks to human health. The corn-antibiotic mixture fed to cattle provides ideal conditions for certain strains of lethal bacteria to flourish, since a diet of antibiotics in such unclean conditions increases the risk of bacteria developing immunity. Traditional farming methods avoid such problems through grass-fed diets and by removing excess antibiotics. But even without the threat of lethal bacteria, organic beef has a number of health advantages. It contains less fat, more essential vitamins, is easier on the digestive tract, and causes less of a risk of heart disease. In terms of health factors, traditional farming methods again prove preferable.
Animal interests are clearly better served through ranch-style farming, but this itself may not be enough of an incentive for the general population to advocate widespread reform. Although industrial farms prove more economically advantageous than traditional farming, they lose in all other categories. If ethical standards do not provide reason enough for reform of the meat processing industry, then perhaps environmental and health factors can appeal to human self-interest.
George Knaysi is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run on Tuesdays.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 13 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 18 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
