Local Commentaries
(2011-07-18)
Listen Now:
null
Heather McIlvaine-Newsad
As the daughter and sister of farmers who continue to be good stewards of our 200 year old family farm, and a resident of McDonough County who is worried about the environmental impact of CAFOs, I listened intently. However, when I offered my testimony, as I do in this commentary, it was as a scientist.
We heard the proponents of CAFOs argue that the animals are treated ethically, communities benefit economically, and that the facilities pose no significant health risk to the environment or the people who live nearby.
The owner and his advisers claimed that their arguments were based "sound science," pointing to the "the support of the USDA, state departments of agriculture, and the agricultural universities as clear and compelling evidence that science ha[s] validated the legitimacy of CAFOs."
This is not entirely true. The legitimacy of public concerns about CAFOs are also "confirmed by the predominance of scientific evidence." Scientists at major medical schools have been studying the public health impacts of CAFOs for years.
And others - anthropologists, sociologists, and agricultural economists - not directly involved in the "agriculture establishment," have been documenting the detrimental social and economic changes that result after a CAFO is established in a rural community.
One thing is certain. Scientists do not agree on CAFOs. The questions of whose science is "sound" and whose is "junk" leads us to the understanding that there is no single approach to conducting sound scientific research or interpreting the significance of the results. The methods and findings depend upon the questions being asked.
Proponents of CAFOs and rural communities are asking fundamentally different questions. Take rule #6 under the Illinois Livestock Management Facilities Act:
Whether odor control plans are reasonable and incorporate reasonable or innovative odor reduction technologies given the current state of such technologies;
CAFO proponents ask whether CAFOs can be designed, constructed, and operated in ways in which the facilities won't stink. This question asks if "socially responsible" CAFOs are technically feasible. This kind of science requires an engineering or experimental approach that relies on a methodology that calls for experiments which are carried out under highly controlled conditions like those found in laboratories.
The questions rural communities are asking is whether CAFOs as they exist in the real world are actually operated in a "socially responsible" manner.
In other words, if I live next door to a CAFO will I be able to sit outside and enjoy my backyard, or is it going to stink?
This requires a fundamentally different type of research, one that does not take place in a controlled environment. Researchers must take assessments of the actual air, water, and soil measuring the various biological and chemical substances that might represent risks to human health.
The health of people working in CAFOs and living in impacted areas must also be routinely measured to provide scientific evidence regarding whether actual illness or diseases have resulted from such environmental risks.
We know that the technology exists to design, construct, and operate "socially responsible" CAFOs. However, decades of epidemiological and sociological research clearly demonstrate that under real-world conditions CAFOs are generally not operated in a "socially responsible" manner.
Coming back to the stink factor, one gentleman offered that when applying the manure to the fields, many farmers use the draghose injection technology which shoots the manure into the ground.
But, when farmers turn around at the end of their fields they have to raise the hoses, thus routinely exposing the nozzles to the air. If the pump is not shut off when turning, untreated manure shoots out the end of the nozzles and accumulates at the ends of fields causing both a stink and posing a public health hazard.
Thus, CAFOS as they operate in the real world do represent significant risks to the health of the environment and humans. People make mistakes and we don't live in a highly controlled laboratory environment.
Today is a critical time for the future of rural America. A few local investors and agribusiness corporations are asking the many to sacrifice their futures so that they can maximize their profits.
One of the most valuable assets rural communities have is an unpolluted natural environmental and strong sense of community. I can almost guarantee you that if Shamrock Acres is granted the right to build, both of these things will no longer be present in the future.
Heather McIlvaine-Newsad is a Professor of Anthropology at Western Illinois University. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the university or Tri States Public Radio.
© Copyright 2013, wium
