1

Rollins

Anngilee Rollins
Irene Peterson
ENGL 1010-094
2 Dec. 2015
Meat Dilemma
With an ever expanding population, the need to produce enough food to eat and at
reasonable prices is of increasing concern and importance across the globe. Since the 1970s,
factory farming has become a reliable means of achieving that scale of production to feed the
growing masses, but at what cost? The quality of our meat has drastically decreased in favor of
high product output. Waste from factories seeps out and destroys the environment and local
communities. Sustainable resources are depleting at alarming rates. Animals have to be pumped
full of antibiotics to keep them from getting and spreading diseases, due to their close and
unsanitary enclosures. Death and illness due to increased consumption of low quality meat and
dairy is at all-time highs. We are starting to see degenerative chronic diseases that used to be
confined to the aging population now in young school-age children. All these realities concern
me because I believe there is a better way to produce meat that would not harm the environment,
or decrease the quality of life for animals and humans alike.
What quality of life are we setting our future generations up for? Why is the food
industry allowed to continue unsafe practices at the expense of animal and human health? What
changes could improve living conditions for animals and still feed the growing masses?
Countless studies have been done; the research is there, the results are in; but without society
taking a hard look at those results and coming together to find and implement solutions, no
advances can be made to improve quality of life for the future. Numerous studies conclude that

Rollins

factory farms are the leading source of the decreasing health in America, largely because of the
unsanitary and inhumane conditions animals are being raised in.
Regulatory agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.),
and the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.), have been put in place with the intention of
monitoring and regulating factory farms to ensure companies are following national guidelines,
and to help insure public health and safety. Yet even with regulations in place, meat is still
processed and sent to market filled with bacteria, diseases and toxins that end up giving people
food poisoning and food borne illnesses. Food borne illnesses can cause serious and severe
complications such as hemorrhagic colitis, bloodstream infection, meningitis, joint infection,
kidney failure, paralysis, miscarriage, and arthritis. E. coli can literally melt your insides and
Campylobacter can produce acute paralysis that results in a premature death (Castle 75).
It is the lack of sanitary conditions of factory farms that lead to meat becoming
contaminated. A documentary called American Meat, a Pro-Farmer Documentary, shows how
fecal matter and urine become matted into animals fur or feathers due to close cramped quarters
and the inability for workers to clean up after the thousands of animals each day. When chickens
are sent to be processed, the buildup of waste gets spread from one chicken to another in steam
baths that are meant to heat their feathers off. Despite the hot water, the steam baths only create a
pool of fecal matter that doesnt get washed off, only spread around. The book The Meaty Truth
shares an example of how difficult it is to wash this matter off; a study done by Consumer
Reports in 2013 showed that 97 percent of chickens sold in stores were covered in fecal
contamination (an indicator of the presence of E. coli) and over half of those chickens contained
antibiotic-resistant pathogens. This means that consumers are likely to buy meat that has multi-

Rollins

drug resistant strains of bacteria, and if/when consumers get sick, treatment will become
increasingly harder to find.
So why doesnt the U.S.D.A or F.D.A. do something to change this? Meat corporations
fight these agencies from instituting new regulations where possible because doing so would all
but stop production. Stopping production would wreck the economy and have devastating
impacts on families that cant afford to spend much money on food. Alternatives to factory
farming are being implemented all over the world on small and medium scales, proving that
there are multiple options instead of factory farming, but the drawback to alternative farming is
that in order to produce enough meat to feed America, there would have to be considerably more
farms than there are now.
The founder of Polyface Farms Inc., Joel Salatin, is one of those farmers who have been
exploring alternate ways of producing meat that would improve the environment, human health,
and animal wellbeing (Graham). His methods involve symbiotic relationships between pigs,
cattle and chickens where each one contributes to the decomposition of waste, eliminating the
need for expensive fossil fuels. This allows for animals to feed and roam outside, which is not
only good for producing higher quality meat, but provides animals with stronger immune
systems and cuts down considerably on illnesses when they are allowed to feed on grass which
their bodies are meant to consume. Mr. Salatin acknowledges that the need for meat will always
be there, so there will always been a need for farms, however, he believes that grass fed meat can
be affordable to all consumers, and that while efficient at producing large quantities of meat,
factory farmings drawbacks can and should be reevaluated.

Rollins

An opposite opinion from Mr. Salatins view is given by The United Egg Producers of
America and gives a meat industrys view to consider when questioning the dilemma of factory
farms. In the report titled Impacts of Banning Cage Egg Production in the United States, they
explain the impact that banning cage egg production would have for the United States and shows
that, at least in egg production, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. They bring together
statistics and studies conducted by the National Agriculture Statistics Service (N.A.S.S.) on the
effects that cage-free egg production would have on the environment, consumers and the
economy. They state that cage free egg production is not to the consumers benefit because it
would increase the production and sale cost, as well as increase the need for land both to raise
the chickens and crops to feed them, negatively impacting the environment and the industrys
carbon footprint. This would mean that big meat corporations would have to spend more money
on raising the animals, which would drive prices for the consumers. This not only is contrary to
the ultimate goal to produce cheaper meat for greatest return value for these companies, but it
has the potential for devastating negative profits if people are unwilling to pay more for meat.
According to this report, the layer systems with cage houses are becoming more widely
used and are an efficient way to manage large quantities of chickens while keeping cages
relatively free of waste and allowing for easy automated systems for feeding and collecting eggs.
They claim that this method keeps chickens safe and sanitary and provides lower feed costs,
higher egg yields, less feather picking between chickens and have the lowest environmental
impacts. The downsides to these systems are that chickens are packed in tightly next to each
other to maximize production; cage bottoms are slopped metal grates, allowing for waste to exit
the cage and be taken away with a conveyer belt but also can be a hindrance to chickens trying to
stand. Animal rights activists argue that this system does not sufficiently allow for all natural

Rollins

behaviors and allows for antibiotic immunity build up which will soon leave antibiotics useless,
inducing antibiotic resistant super diseases to spread without restraint.
In an attempt to slow down or possibly stop super diseases from spreading, in 2012 the
F.D.A. approved a new regulation that decreases the amount of antibiotics that farmers are able
to use on their animals. The regulation restricts the use of antibiotics to only animals that show
signs of sickness, instead of a majority of animals for the sole purpose of increasing animal
growth (Harris). Today farmers have to get a veterinarians approval before antibiotics can be
administered, proving that the animal is sick. This has caused much frustration to farmers, who
rely heavily on quick turnaround. Despite the disapprovals, Michael Taylor, the F.D.A.s deputy
commissioner for food, believes this regulation is paramount to saving lives. Using small
amounts of antibiotics over long periods of time leads to the growth of bacteria that are resistant
to the drugs effects, endangering humans who become infected but cannot be treated with
routine antibiotic therapy. It has been estimated that 99,000 people die each year from infections
acquired in hospitals, the majority of which are the result of these kinds of resistant strains of
bacteria. While it is unknown how many of these deaths are from farming uses of antibiotics, it is
known that about 80 percent of antibiotics in the United States are used on animals (Harris).
Antibiotics became the wonder drug of the 19th century, and once farmers realized the
growth effect they had on animals they began to add it to animals feed and water without concern
for the effect it might have on people. Though by the 1970s health officials started becoming
worried that the overuse of these antibiotics was leading to the development of infections that
were resistant to treatments in humans. But in 1977 when the F.D.A. stated they were going to
begin banning some of these for farming use, the House and Senate appropriations committees,
which were largely ruled by agricultural interests, passed resolutions to prevent the bans from

Rollins

happening. Since then, time has proven that drug resistance created by overuse of antibiotics has
created serious health concerns, worldwide, that officials are no longer able to ignore.
The issue of factory farming is complicated and diverse, holding economic, financial,
ethical and moral implications for all. One thing is clear; change is needed. Without intervening,
not only do animals continue to suffer, but the environment will reach a crucial point where it
will no longer be able to sustain life. Local ecosystems will continue to become larger dead
zones where fecal matter will kill any fish or animal due to toxins and diseases spread through
the ground. These same contaminations will continue to drive communities out of their homes.
Fossil fuels and farming land will become depleted, forcing society to pay more for meat or go
without. The most devastating of all though, is the lifespan and health problems that Americans
will start to experience on much larger scales than they do now.
Despite the setbacks and challenges facing this meat dilemma, thanks to countless studies
and hours given to finding farming alternatives, many people and companies are starting to take
responsibility for what they have control over. Smaller farms and individual families are
implementing Mr. Salitins methods, consumers are recognizing the health benefits of eating
meat that has been raised humanely, and large grocery chains are seeking out local farmers to
stock their shelves. All these actions, and more, are what will add to the long term increase in
health of each American. Each step taken will help create more humane and sanitary conditions
for each animal that is raised for meat, and also conserve and protect the environment that future
generations will have to look forward to.

Rollins

Works Cited

American Meat, a Pro-Farmer Documentary. Dr. Graham Meriwether. Perf. Joel Salatin.
Passion River, 2013. DVD.
Castle, Shashana, and Amy-Lee Goodman. The Meaty Truth. New York. Skyhouse Publishing.
2014. Print.
Harris, Gardiner. U.S. Tightens Rules on Antibiotics Use for Livestock. The New York Times.
The New York Times Company, 11 April 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
United Egg Producers. Impacts of Banning Cage Egg Production in the United States. Virginia.
Promar International, 2009. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.