Environmental impact The EPA has focused on regulating CAFOs because they generate millions of tons of manure every year. When improperly managed, the manure can pose substantial risks to the environment and
public health. In order to manage their waste, CAFO operators have developed
agricultural wastewater treatment plans. The most common type of facility used in these plans, the
anaerobic lagoon, has significantly contributed to environmental and health problems attributed to the CAFO.
Water quality The large amounts of animal waste from CAFOs present a risk to water quality and aquatic ecosystems. States with high concentrations of CAFOs experience on average 20 to 30 serious water quality problems per year as a result of manure management issues.Animal waste includes a number of potentially harmful pollutants. Pollutants associated with CAFO waste principally include: •
nitrogen and
phosphorus, collectively known as
nutrient pollution; • organic matter; • solids, including the manure itself and other elements mixed with it such as spilled feed, bedding and litter materials, hair, feathers and animal corpses; •
pathogens (disease-causing organisms such as bacteria and viruses); •
salts; • trace elements such as
arsenic; • odorous/volatile compounds such as
carbon dioxide,
methane,
hydrogen sulfide, and
ammonia; •
antibiotics; •
pesticides and
hormones. The two main contributors to water pollution caused by CAFOs are soluble nitrogen compounds and phosphorus. The
eutrophication of water bodies from such waste is harmful to wildlife and water quality in aquatic system like streams, lakes, and oceans.
Groundwater and surface water are closely linked, so polluting one often affects the other. Some facility designs, such as lagoons, can reduce the risk of groundwater contamination, but the microbial pathogens from animal waste may still pollute surface and groundwater, harming wildlife and human health. A CAFO is responsible for one of the biggest environmental spills in U.S. history. In 1995, a lagoon ruptured in
North Carolina. North Carolina contains a lot of the United States' industrial hog operations, which disproportionally impact Black, Hispanic and Indian American residents. The spill released of effluvium into the
New River and killed 10 million local fish. The spill also contributed to an outbreak of
Pfiesteria piscicida, which caused health problems in nearby humans, including skin irritation and short-term cognitive problems.
Air quality CAFOs reduce ambient
air quality. They release several gases harmful to humans: ammonia, hydrogen sulfide,
methane, and
particulate matter. Larger CAFOs release more gas, mostly by the decomposition of large stores of animal manure. The source is not widely known, but animal feed is suspected.Globally,
ruminant livestock are responsible for about 115 Tg/a of the 330 Tg/a (35%) of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions released per year. Livestock operations are responsible for about 18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally and over 7% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Methane is the second most concentrated greenhouse gas contributing to global
climate change, with livestock contributing nearly 30% of anthropogenic methane emissions. Only 17% of livestock-related emissions come from manure, whereas most come from
enteric fermentation or gases produced during digestion. The
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) argues for reducing
use of non-therapeutic antibiotics, especially those that are widely used in human medicine, on the advice of over 350 organizations including the
American Medical Association. If no change is made and methane emissions continue increasing in direct proportion to the number of livestock, global methane production is predicted to increase by 60% by 2030. Greenhouse gases and
climate change make air worse, causing illnesses such as
respiratory disorders, lung tissue damage, and allergies. Reducing the increase of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock could rapidly curb global warming. Also, people near CAFOs often complain of the smell, which comes from a complex mixture of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and
volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds. Waste disposal also makes air worse. Some CAFOs will use "spray fields" and pump the waste of thousands of animals into a machine that sprays it onto an open field. The spray can be carried by wind onto nearby homes, depositing
pathogens, heavy metals, and antibiotic resistant bacteria into the air of poor or minority communities. It often contains respiratory and
eye irritants including hydrogen sulfide and
ammonia.
Economic impact Increased role in the market The economic role of CAFOs has expanded significantly in the U.S. in the past few decades, and there is clear evidence that CAFOs have come to dominate
animal production industries. The rise in large-scale animal agriculture began in the 1930s with the modern mechanization of swine slaughterhouse operations. The growth of corporate contracting has also contributed to a transition from a system of many small-scale farms to one of relatively few large industrial-scale
farms. This has dramatically changed the animal agricultural sector in the United States. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, "In the 1930s, there were close to 7 million farms in the United States and as of the 2002 census, just over 2 million farms remain." From 1969 to 2002, the number of family farms dropped by 39%, yet the percentage of family farms has remained high. As of 2004, 98% of all U.S. farms were family-owned and -operated. Most meat and dairy products are now produced on large farms with single-species buildings or open-air pens. Due to their increased efficiency, CAFOs provide a source of low cost
animal products: meat, milk and eggs. CAFOs may also stimulate local economies through increased employment and use of local materials in their production. Along with the noted benefits, there are also criticisms regarding CAFOs' impact on the economy. Many farmers in the United States find that it is difficult to earn a high income due to the low market prices of animal products. Such market factors often lead to low profit margins for production methods and a competitive disadvantage against CAFOs. Alternative animal production methods, like "free range" or "family farming" operations are losing their ability to compete, though they present few of the environmental and health risks associated with CAFOs.
Negative production externalities The price of meat does not reflect the negative ecological impacts that result from industrial agricultural systems. The
negative production externalities (when market prices inappropriately reflect or hide the societal harms incurred in the creation of a product) of CAFOs include damaging effects to the environment caused by, among others, ever-increasing amounts of often poorly managed waste. For instance, researchers found that there is a statistically significant relationship between property values declines and CAFO proximity.
Other economic criticisms Critics of CAFOs also maintain that CAFOs benefit from industrial and agricultural tax breaks and subsidies, and the "vertical integration of giant
agribusiness firms". The
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), for instance, spent an average of $16 billion annually between FY 1996 to FY 2002 on commodity-based subsidies. Lax enforcement of anti-competitive practices may be helping create a market monopoly. Critics also contend that CAFOs cut costs by overusing antibiotics.
Public health concerns The direct discharge of manure from CAFOs and the accompanying pollutants (including nutrients,
antibiotics,
pathogens, and
arsenic) is a serious
public health risk. The
contamination of groundwater with pathogenic organisms from CAFOs can threaten drinking water safety, and contamination of drinking water with pathogens can cause outbreaks of infectious disease. The
EPA estimates that 53% of the United States population drinks groundwater. Contamination of water by CAFOs causes various heart problems. Accidental ingestion of contaminated water can result in diarrhea or other gastrointestinal illnesses. Dermal exposure can result in irritation and infection of the skin, eyes or ear. High levels of nitrate in drinking water are associated with increased risk of
hyperthyroidism, insulin-dependent
diabetes, and central nervous system malformations. Antibiotic resistance can result due to DNA mutations, transformations and conjugations arising from various antibiotics and pharmaceutical drugs found in drinking water. When bacteria in or around animals are exposed to antibiotics, natural selection favours the spread of mutations with greater resistance. Use of antibiotics by CAFOs thus increases
antimicrobial resistance. This threatens public health because resistant bacteria generated by CAFOs can be spread to the surrounding environment and communities via waste water discharge or the aerosolization of particles. ] Air pollution caused by CAFOs can cause asthma, headaches, respiratory problems, eye irritation, nausea, weakness, and chest tightness. These affect farm workers and nearby residents, including children. Furthermore, a Dutch cross-sectional study 2,308 adults found decreases in residents' lung function to be correlated with increases of particle emissions by nearby farms. In regards to workers, multiple respiratory consequences should be noted. Although "in many big CAFOs, it takes only a few workers to run a facility housing thousands of animals," the long exposure and close contact to animals puts CAFO employees at an increased risk. This includes a risk of contracting diseases like
Novel H1N1 flu, which erupted globally in spring of 2009, or
MRSA, a strain of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Studies conducted by the University of Iowa show that the asthma rate of children of CAFO operators is higher than that of children from other farms.
Negative effects on minority populations Low income and
minority populations suffer disproportionately from proximity to CAFOs and pollution and waste. In addition to financial problems, CAFOs are also protected by
"right-to-farm" law that protects them from residents that are living in CAFO occupied communities. Not only are communities surrounded negatively affected by CAFOs, but the workers themselves experience harm from being on the job. In a study done in North Carolina that focused on twenty one Latino chicken catchers for a poultry-processing plant, the work place was found to be forcefully high-intensity labor with high potential for injury and illness including
trauma, respiratory illness, drug use and
musculoskeletal injuries. Workers were also found to have little training about the job or safety. In the United States, agricultural workers are engaged in one of the most hazardous jobs in the country. CAFO workers have historically been African American but there has been a surge of Hispanic and often undocumented
Hispanic workers. Between 1980 and 2000, there was a clear shift in an ethnic and racially diverse workforce, led by Hispanic workforce growth.[7] Oftentimes, CAFO owners will preferably hire Hispanic workers because they are low-skilled workers who are willing to work longer hours and do more intensive work. Due to this, there are increased ICE raids on meat processing plants.
Animal health and welfare concerns CAFO practices have raised concerns over
animal welfare from an ethics standpoint. Some view such conditions as neglectful to basic animal welfare. According to
David Nibert, professor of sociology at
Wittenberg University, more than 10 billion animals are housed in "horrific conditions" in more than 20,000 CAFOs across the U.S. alone, where they "spend their last 100–120 days crammed together by the thousands standing in their own excrement, with little or no shelter from the elements." Many people believe that the harm to animals before their slaughter should be addressed through public policy. Laws regarding animal welfare in CAFOs have already been passed in the United States. For instance, in 2002, the state of Florida passed an amendment to the state's constitution banning the confinement of pregnant pigs in
gestation crates. As a source for comparison, the use of
battery cages for egg-laying hens and battery cage breeding methods have been completely outlawed in the European Union since 2012. Whereas some people are concerned with animal welfare as an end in itself, others are concerned about animal welfare because of the effect of living conditions on
consumer safety. Animals in CAFOs have lives that do not resemble those of animals found in the wild. Although CAFOs help secure a reliable supply of animal products, the quality of the goods produced is debated, with many arguing that the food produced is unnatural. For instance, confining animals into small areas requires the use of large quantities of
antibiotics to prevent the spread of disease. There are debates over whether the use of antibiotics in meat production is harmful to humans. == Regulation under the Clean Water Act ==