Industrial Food Animal Production In America: Examining The Impact Of The Pew Commission’s Priority Recommendations

Generated Summary

This document is a report by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) that assesses the impact of the Pew Commission’s recommendations on Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) in America. The report examines the progress made, the barriers encountered, and the ongoing relevance of the original work. The methodology involves examining recent legislation, regulatory efforts, scientific literature, and discussions with researchers and policymakers to evaluate the progress made toward the six priority recommendations outlined by the Commission. The scope of the report encompasses an analysis of the key areas of public health, the environment, animal welfare, rural communities, and research. It focuses on efforts to reform food animal production systems and evaluates the changes and challenges over a five-year period since the initial report’s release.

Key Findings & Statistics

• In 2011, 29.9 million pounds of antibiotics were sold for use in meat and poultry production, representing 80 percent of the total volume of antibiotics sold in the United States for any purpose.
• In 2011, E. coli isolated from 37.5 percent of chicken breast samples and 64.4 percent of ground turkey samples were resistant to at least three antimicrobial classes.
• In 2011, 43.3 percent of Salmonella isolates from chicken breast, 33.7 percent of ground turkey isolates, 42.9 percent of ground beef isolates, and 50 percent of pork chop isolates were resistant to three or more classes.
• The average hospitalization cost for a MRSA patient was $45,920 compared to $9,699 for a MSSA patient.
• A Canadian study found that MRSA infection increased hospital stays by a mean of 14 days.
• Compared to MSSA patients, MRSA patients were 12 percent more likely to die.
• The USDA estimates that more than 335 million dry tons of manure are produced yearly in the United States.
• In 2008, public research funding for zoonotic pathogens and other hazards to human health and safety peaked at $102 million.
• Research expenditures for protecting the food supply from microbial and chemical contamination peaked at $178 million, also in 2008.
• Research dollars for animal welfare and stress peaked at $50 million in 2006.
• Public expenditures for food and agricultural research and development peaked in 2008 at $5.2 billion, before declining to $4.27 billion in 2010.
• NIH funding for research related to food animal production and human health increased from $0.2 million in 2000 to $5.9 million in 2008.

Other Important Findings

• The Commission’s original report, “Putting Meat on the Table,” was a critical step in documenting the unsustainable nature of the dominant contemporary model of food animal production.
• The report highlights the risks posed by the current model to people, animal welfare, environmental quality, and the ability of the planet to sustain future life.
• The FDA has pursued a voluntary and partial approach to restricting nontherapeutic antimicrobial use. In April 2012, the agency issued one guidance document and published a draft of a second guidance document that together urge drug companies to voluntarily withdraw approvals to market antimicrobials for certain nontherapeutic uses (i.e., growth promotion) while maintaining and likely adding approvals to market these drugs for other nontherapeutic uses (i.e., preventive or chemoprophylaxis use).
• The report finds that meaningful change is unlikely in the near future due to the voluntary approach preferred by the FDA and the lack of willingness by the industry to alter its behavior.
• The government has struggled with the public/private balance and has made decisions in favor of the latter.

Limitations Noted in the Document

• The report acknowledges that it is not a comprehensive treatment of all developments since the 2008 Commission report.
• Several additional developments, particularly at the state level and with regard to litigation, are not fully captured in the assessment.
• The authors note that in some cases, legislative and regulatory actions could be clearly linked to recommendations presented in the 2008 Commission report, while in other instances, no explicit connection existed.
• The research relied on data from various sources, including recent legislation and regulatory efforts at the federal and state levels, scientific and gray literature, and discussions with researchers, advocates, and policymakers.

Conclusion

The report concludes that despite the identification of significant public health and environmental risks associated with industrial food animal production, meaningful progress towards the Pew Commission’s recommendations has been limited. The study suggests that the voluntary approach favored by the FDA and the industry’s reluctance to change their practices hinder substantial reform. The report underscores the need for a more engaged and informed public, a legislative body that prioritizes public interests, and an administration that strengthens regulations. It emphasizes that without these coordinated efforts, sustainable change in the food animal production system remains unlikely. The report highlights specific areas of concern, such as the increasing concentration in the meat and dairy industries and the limitations of voluntary commitments. The report’s emphasis on the need for government regulation and public awareness reflects the challenges in transforming the food system. The analysis indicates that while some progress has been made, the overall trend suggests that the industry continues to resist substantive changes, and more aggressive enforcement of antitrust laws, as recommended by the Pew Commission, is needed to address the issues. In essence, the report serves as a call to action for comprehensive change in the IFAP industry, citing the continuing need for regulatory intervention, public engagement, and a shift towards more sustainable practices. The document also states that “State legislative efforts to criminalize whistleblowers exposing the cruelty of industrial confinement production system must be opposed. The lack of transparency in the industrial food animal production system is a serious concern and presents a concern from a public health perspective.”