More on Livestock and Food Price Volatility

It is not difficult to understand that higher world food prices exacerbate food insecurity since it means that the world’s poor are able to buy even less food (roughly 1 billion people live on less than $1.25/day). The more complex question relates to the source of elevated food prices. Although biofuel production and agricultural speculation from the largest agricultural trading companies (ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus) get a lot of attention, livestock production is perhaps the most significant factor, since producing animal-based foods requires that large amounts of agricultural land be used to produce feed, such as corn and soy, that is inefficiently cycled through animals to produce calories rather than being used to cultivate food for direct human consumption.

A 2011 report entitled “Price volatility and food security“ by the Committe on Food Security - an intergovernmental organization within the UN system - recognizes the heavy impact of the livestock sector on food security, stating:

How should animal welfare factor into dietary choices?

Admittedly, not much of the blog posts below have focused directly on animal welfare issues. While humans have a clear interest in mitigating many of the negative impacts associated with livestock — global warming,  pollution of air and water, massive consumption of land, grain, and fresh water, and chronic diet-related health problems — the welfare of farm animals does not directly threaten humans. Arguments against the intensive confinement of farm animals primarily center around pollution, antibiotic resistance, risk of super-viruses such as H1N1 that originate in livestock, and even the decline of the family farm in the age of vertically-integrated livestock corporations, though animal welfare is often only a secondary or non-existent consideration.

Even if people put human interests first, the animal welfare argument at least demands some attention, and certainly does not detract from the various positions against the negative externalities arising from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or against the livestock sector in general.  According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (the FAO), roughly 56 billion land animals are raised each year for human consumption; that comes out to about 8 animals per each human per year excluding all marine life (see post below from May 28). If one believes that each individual animal is worthy of some ethical consideration, then the fact that the majority of these animals are confined to crowded CAFOs that deny them some of their most basic needs should prompt one to at least consider the possibility that most livestock practices are unethical from an animal welfare perspective (for further information, see Humane Society International‘s page on ‘Intensive Confinement.’)

Livestock, biofuel, and the current food price hike

For much of the US, this summer has produced record heat and the worst drought in 50 years. This has severely diminished corn production, leading to a 23% rise in corn prices, a 17% rise in cereal prices, and a 6% rise in total food prices globally in July, according to FAO food indices. Elevated grain prices affect consumer prices and have the potential to exacerbate food insecurity in the world; for example, the food price hike back in 2007 and 2008 led to food riots and an increase in malnutrition for much of the world’s poor, who were forced to spend a significantly higher proportion of their limited income on food.

In the US, only a small proportion of corn is grown for direct human consumption. Around 80% is grown for livestock, both for US and foreign markets – and this equates to a large share of global corn production, as nearly half of the world’s corn is grown in the US (EPA). Of the corn that remains in the US, 43% goes to livestock, 44% to ethanol production, and the remaining 12% to food or other industrial applications (USDA ERS). Naturally, the competition between food, feed, and fuel is exacerbated in times like these when output is greatly diminished.

An analysis of food system priorities

In January of this year (2012), the Food Climate Research Network and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food held a 2-day workshop from which the report  “Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Navigating a course through competing food system priorities” was produced. While the title might suggest support for intensive livestock practices, upon reading the text, one finds a very nuanced assessment of the impacts associated with various levels of livestock intensity in both developing and developed countries.

The report examines livestock’s impacts on 1) the environment, 2) animal welfare, and 3) public health, showing that the utility of all livestock practices ought to be measured through these categories according to the interests of all stakeholders involved – which include farmers, consumers, farm animals, wild animals, local communities, and future generations – and according to the general goals that society has for food production. In the context of sustainability, it describes food as “a good whose production relies on natural and socioeconomic capital” – in other words, that there are a variety of resources, many of which are limited, that go into producing food, and that meeting the nutritional needs of a burgeoning world population should use these resources mindfully without compromising the quality of life of future generations. It suggests that reducing the consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy would have beneficial results, and then examines the governance and demand management issues involved in such a shift. Throughout the report, the authors frame the issue in a very comprehensive way, showing that there are many factors and  trade-offs that must be addressed when policymakers and society at large consider how to produce enough food to meet human nutritional needs while giving weight to the many other issues involved.

Thanks to A Well-Fed World for posting the link on its website to FCRN and many other organizations that, in various ways, examine the global impacts of the livestock sector and the consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy.

Union of Concerned Scientists on CAFO Externalities

In 2008, The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published a study led by Doug Gurian-Sherman that focused on many of the externalities related to animal agriculture in the US. It argues that the increasingly common CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations, often referred to as factory farms) are harmful, unsustainable, and have made tax-payers and local communities bear the cost of many of the negative side-effects that they produce — i.e. they have externalized many of their costs. Misguided government policy has enabled this mode of livestock production to become the norm through subsidies to producers, government clean-up of waste sites, and cheap livestock feed, despite that other, more sustainable forms of animal husbandry could be productive and profitable. There has been a simultaneous growth in the power and market concentration of the  large, vertically-integrated livestock processing companies that control every step of the production of livestock products; they are often referred to as “semen to celophane” operations, since they literally incorporate every phase from breeding, to raising, slaughter, and processing. These big ag corporations, such as Smithfield, Tyson, and Perdue, are defended by a powerful lobby that exerts significant power over government policy. For many years, the EPA has also been very lax on CAFOs whose manure lagoons polluted US waterways – a violation of the Clean Water Act — though fortunately has gotten stricter in recent years (see Animal Factory, by David Kirby, for example.)

Gurian-Sherman’s argument is limited in many ways. While there is a dramatic, qualitative difference between intensive and extensive animal agriculture, many negative externalities are not resolved by merely replacing CAFOs with  other forms of production. He calls attention to some of the key externalities related to CAFOs, such as water/air pollution and antibiotic resistance, though his analysis does not look at many of the other externalities associated with CAFOs and animal agriculture in general. While there is mention of livestock’s effect on climate change, he only hints at it in his article — which is bizarre given livestock’s status as the number one contributor to manmade greenhouse gas emissions in carbon equivalent (see the FAO and World Watch). Furthermore, he does not focus on animal welfare or sustainability issues related to the mass consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy; again, it seems that he is overlooking some very urgent issues associated with raising over 56 billion livestock animals annually worldwide, primarily in intensive operations.

The FAO, Climate Change, and the Meat Industry

Interesting New York Times article from Mark Bittman’s opinion page entitled “FAO Yields to Meat Industry Pressure on Climate Change.” Written by Robert Goodland, coauthor of the well-known article “Livestock and Climate Change,”  which estimates that livestock accounts for up to 51% of all manmade greenhouse gas emissions in carbon equivalent (see post from June 13 below).

The externalized costs of meat

externality |ˌekˌstərˈnalitē|

noun ( pl. -ties)

[Economics] a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved, such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey.

(Oxford American Dictionary, 2012)

Externalities are not a rare occurrence in the world, though some human activities generate more dramatic cases. In addition to positive externalities – such as the example of honey bees pollinating nearby crops - there are also negative externalities. Imagine that the same bees are also responsible for stinging 100 people; the pain and medical costs that these people must deal with would not likely be reflected in the price that consumer’s pay the beekeeper for her honey.

While certain livestock activities can produce positive externalities, such as cheap fertilizer for nearby farmers in the form of manure, today’s livestock production creates a plethora of negative externalities. Examples include; water and air pollution, chronic health-related diseases, the production of super viruses such as H1N1, the suffering of billions of animals in intensive confinement, and a loss of  biodiversity and increase in global warming from clearing vast tracks of forested land for feed and rangeland. It is not negative for humans to enjoy the taste and hunger-satiating effects of eating meat, eggs, and dairy, to connect with other humans over the cultural practices related to eating animal-based foods, or to earn a livelihood  from raising livestock , though the negative externalities associated with producing and consuming such products far outweigh these positive points. This basic cost-benefit analysis should be the basis for a critical rethinking of our food system and our personal diets; the detriments of modern livestock practices far outweigh the benefits.