HOLD THE BEEF

Why America Must Reduce its Beef Consumption

April 15, 2016

Sylricka Foster, Daniel Giddings, Stav Gilutz, Jamie Rae Hanson, Lauren Wolahan

Columbia University

2

Columbia University

School of International and Public Affairs

MPA Environmental Science and Policy

Faculty Advisers:

Maureen E. Raymo, PhD: Bruce C. Heezen Lamont Research Professor

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

Gidon Eshel, PhD: Research Professor

Bard Center for Environmental Policy, Bard College

Sara Tjossem, PhD: Senior Lecturer

School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University

3

Table of Contents

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................ 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER I: The Environmental Impacts of Beef .............................................................. 8

Beef and Energy ............................................................................................................... 8

Beef and Land Use ........................................................................................................... 9

World Outlook ................................................................................................................ 9

U.S. Agricultural Land Use ........................................................................................... 10

Beef’s Share of Land Use ............................................................................................. 11

Beef and Biodiversity ..................................................................................................... 15

Beef and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 17

Land Use Change .......................................................................................................... 17

Nitrogen Production ..................................................................................................... 18

Animal Manure ............................................................................................................. 18

Beef and Water .............................................................................................................. 19

Water Scarcity ............................................................................................................. 19

Water Pollution ............................................................................................................ 20

CHAPTER II: Public Health Concerns of Beef Consumption .......................................... 25

Red Meat and Cancer ..................................................................................................... 25

Red Meat and Other Chronic Ailments .......................................................................... 26

Mad Cow Disease ............................................................................................................ 27

Antibiotics ...................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER III: The Economics of Beef .............................................................................. 30

Beef and Environmental Economics .............................................................................. 31

Economic Characteristics of the American Beef Market .............................................. 32

Size .............................................................................................................................. 32

Demand ........................................................................................................................ 32

Contracts ..................................................................................................................... 32

Market Concentration .................................................................................................. 34

Subsidies ...................................................................................................................... 34

Damages to Ecosystem Services in Beef Production .................................................... 37

Climate Regulation ...................................................................................................... 38

4

Water Supply ............................................................................................................... 38

Soil Retention .............................................................................................................. 39

Waste Treatment ......................................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER IV: Review of Existing Policy ............................................................................ 41

Environmental Policy ..................................................................................................... 41

The Clean Water Act .................................................................................................... 41

Clean Air Regulation .................................................................................................... 42

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program ............................................................................ 43

Economic Policy ............................................................................................................. 44

Grazing Rights .............................................................................................................. 44

The Farm Bill ............................................................................................................... 45

Health & Social Policy .................................................................................................... 46

Dietary Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 46

Regulation of Antibiotics ............................................................................................. 49

CHAPTER V: Conclusions & Areas of Opportunities .......................................................... 51

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 53

5

PREFACE

This report is the result of an independent study conducted by 5 graduate students

at the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University in New York

City. The aim of this report is to understand and effectively communicate the

negative environmental impacts of the beef industry in the U.S.

This effort originated from a discussion with Lamont-Doherty Climate Scientist,

Maureen Raymo, and Bard Environmental Physics Research Scientist, Gidon Eshel,

about the ways in which the American diet had a disproportionate impact on climate

change. It was obvious to these academic experts that beef is a disproportionate

driver of environmental problems, including greenhouse gas emissions that

accelerate global climate change. Communicating this information to the American

public and policymakers required a capacity for cross-disciplinary research, time-

intensive analysis, and a platform from which this information could be shared.

This report is the first stage of this process, and will hopefully spur further discussion

and action. The second product of this endeavor is a publicly web report.

Other communication tools including social media, conference presentations, and

more are in the works-- all with the mission of informing and empowering Americans

to “Hold the Beef.”

Visit https://holdthebeef.atavist.com for more opportunities to

further engage.

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

‘Hold the Beef’ presents a synthesis of research and analysis of the impacts that

surround the production and consumption of beef in America. This report also offers

areas of opportunity for public choices and policies that will benefit American

health, wealth, and environment.

First, the reader will find an overview of the environmental impacts of beef. These

include disproportionate and degradative land use for production, intensive

consumption of fossil-fuels, habitat alteration and damage that leads to biodiversity

loss, massive greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution linked to fertilizer and

waste inputs, and excessive groundwater withdrawals for feed production. All of

these impacts derived from beef production are substantially worse compared to

diets that rely on other forms of animal protein or plant-based protein.

This report then addresses the public health concerns associated with beef

consumption. This section of the report specifically focuses on cancer, type II

diabetes, stroke, cardiovascular disease, variant-Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (the

human form of Mad Cow disease), and antibiotic resistance.

Next, the report proposes an economic analysis of the beef market and explains why

the current price of beef does not represent the true cost of production. Beef’s

market price is highly subsidized through direct government subsidies and indirectly

through under-regulated use of natural resources. A conservative estimate suggests

that the current price of ground beef is at a minimum 240% lower than its real cost.

The report then presents problematic governmental policies related to beef. Dietary

guidelines, co-issued by the Department of Agriculture, do not consider

environmental issues, and U.S. food production does not align with nutritional

recommendations. U.S. regulations aimed at protecting water, air, and human

health fall short when it comes to addressing the harms done by the meat industry.

All of these issues characterize beef as it exists in the U.S. From the global

perspective, Westernized beef-heavy diets should not be the trend for parts of the

world experiencing population growth, economic development, and dietary

transitions. It should be stated that a simple shift from beef products to chicken,

pork, dairy, and plant-based foods can make a substantial difference in the

magnitude of these problems.

This report intends to synthesize and demonstrate the severe consequences of beef

production to the social and environmental well-being of Americans. It is hoped that

this report will encourage policymakers, and the public, to initiate action towards

incremental changes in patterns of dietary consumption and agricultural production.

7

Ultimately, the cumulative findings of this report suggest that exploring the impacts

of food systems on our environment certainly deserves more public attention. We

hope that this report convinces the reader to be a part of this solution by making a

simple substitution, in place of beef, of chicken, pork, tofu, or vegetables.

8

CHAPTER I: THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BEEF

“Livestock-based food production is an important and pervasive way humans impact the environment. It causes about one-fifth of global greenhouse gas

emissions, and is the key land user and source of water pollution by nutrient overabundance. It also competes with biodiversity, and promotes species extinctions. Empowering consumers to make choices that mitigate some of

these impacts through devising and disseminating numerically sound information is thus a key socio-environmental priority.”

-Eshel et al., 2010

Beef and Energy

The American food system produces 3800 kilocalories of food energy per capita. The energy

needs of this system total 10.2 quadrillion (10.2 × 1015) BTUs, annually (Heller and Keoleian,

2000). To put this in perspective, this is about 10% of the total energy consumed in the

United States. These same researchers calculate that for every one unit of food energy

produced in the U.S., it required 7.3 units of fossil fuel energy (Heller and Keoleian, 2000). In

2002, the food production system required 17% of all fossil fuel use in the United States

(Horrigan et al. 2002). The average American uses 17 to 68 million BTUs (1.7 × 107 to 6.8 ×

107) of energy for personal transportation and approximately 40 million BTUs (4 × 107) for

their food (Eshel and Martin, 2006).

“..Food production, a function of our dietary choices, represents a significant and growing energy user.”

-Eshel and Martin, 2006

For most any food, the total energy required for that final food product to be produced,

transported, and final placement onto an American’s plate is much greater than the actual

energy that the food provides to the person eating it (Heller and Keoleian, 2000). However,

the energy intrinsic in a beef patty or steak is much greater than other forms of food. For

instance, as Pimentel & Pimentel calculate the 375 kcal of energy provided to a person from

eating the contents of a can of sweet corn would require 3065 kcal of energy to produce.

For the same 375 kcal of nutrition provided by beef, it would require 13,497 kcal of fossil

energy! This is especially concerning when one considers that 96% of this energy is used in

the production of the beef, itself, as opposed to the processing, packaging, and

transportation of this food product (1996b).

By choosing to reduce or substitute beef with comparably nutritious foods, even including

other animal-based foods, the average American can stand to significantly reduce their fossil

fuel footprint.

9

“From an energy efficiency standpoint alone, choosing a vegetarian diet, or at least one greatly reduced in animal products, significantly reduces the environmental

impact of our food system.” -Heller and Keoleian, 2000

Beef and Land Use

World Outlook. It is well understood that beef production is associated with extensive

land usage. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) supports

this fact with current available data compiled in the Agri-environmental dataset, FAOSTAT.

This data points to a global food economy that is increasingly driven by consumption of meat

and dairy. Agriculture, as a system of production, will not only be affected by a resultant

increase in livestock rearing, but also through the increased production of feed for livestock.

This production and supply chain comes complete with negative environmental externalities

such as increased land use, pollution, greenhouse gas emission, among others. “Globally

livestock production is the largest user of agricultural land and therefore also leaves a

significant imprint on the environment” (FAO UN, 2015).

Some noteworthy statistics from FAOSTAT show the monumental intensity of agricultural

activity on the planet’s terrestrial surface. World land area dedicated to agriculture is

38.5%, which is used to produce the food products that make up the world diet, as shown in

Figure 1 (2013).

Figure 1. Dietary Energy Supply Chart from the FAO Statistical Pocketbook, 2015, displaying the share of world average dietary energy supply (FAO UN, 2015).

10

United States Agricultural Land Use. If we focus on the United States, specifically,

we can see that agricultural activities have a larger proportional effect on land use than the

global statistic. The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service

(USDA ERS) periodically assembles a land use report as part of a series, “Major Land Use.”

The Department states about the report, “The Major Land Use (MLU) series is the longest

running, most comprehensive accounting of all major uses of public and private land in the

United States” (USDA ERS, 2015a).

The land use statistics from this report establish that the approximately 2.3 billion acres of

land area in the United States are divided into different uses, shown below in Figure 2.

The USDA Economic Research Service states on its website in the section “Land Use, Land

Value, & Tenure” that total agricultural land use is equal to 51% of the U.S. land base. This

means that approximately 1.16 billion acres are used for agricultural purposes: crop

production, grassland pasture, rangeland, forest-grazing, farmsteads, or farm roads (USDA

ERS, 2015a). This includes all 50 states, including Alaska and Hawaii.

This dedication of land for agricultural use is alarming given that in 2007, only 86,000 of the

375 million acres of the state of Alaska are suitable for agricultural land use. Adjusting for

this, the total percent of land located in the other 49 states classified as for agriculture land

use purposes is actually approximately 60% (USDA NASS, 2009).

The massive proportion of U.S. land use, especially in the contiguous United States,

dedicated to agricultural purposes is concerning in its own right, but doubly so when this is

analyzed for how much of this dedication is part and parcel of the beef industry

11

Figure 2. U.S. Land Use Percentages, as indicated by the USDA ERS Major Land Uses report (Nickerson, Ebel, Borchers, & Carriazo, 2011).

Beef’s Share of Land Use. Within livestock production, beef cattle farming and

ranching is the largest sector of U.S. agriculture using both the value of sales and number

of farms as a measure (USDA NASS, 2014). This sector is mostly comprised of the ~600,000

farms and ~30,000 feedlots which generated the majority of their income in 2012 from beef

cattle production (USDA NASS, 2014a).

According to an analysis of the 2007 Census on Agriculture, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association stated in 2009 that “In fact, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) says more farms are classified as beef cattle operations (31 percent in

2007 and 29 percent in 2012) than any other type of farm (Cattlemen’s Beef Board and

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2009) (USDA NASS 2014a).

To think about what this means for number of animals on U.S. lands, we can look at the

most current statistics (at the time of this report) for living heads of cattle, published by

the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) within the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA): “All cattle and calves in the United States as of January 1, 2016 totaled

92 million head. This is 3 percent above the 89.1 million head on January 1, 2015” (USDA

NASS, 2016). This document also indicates that the 2016 number of beef cattle in the U.S.

12

during this time totaled 30.3 million, up 4 percent from [2015] with 13.2 million of these

animals being fed with cattle feed, not forage. This is over triple the number of dairy cows,

which represent 9.32 million of the total number (USDA NASS, 2016).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service states, “With its abundant

grasslands and large grain supply, the United States has developed a beef industry that is

largely separate from its dairy sector. With the world's largest fed-cattle industry, the

United States is also the world's largest producer of beef--primarily high-quality, grain-fed

beef for domestic and export use (USDA ERS, 2012).”

From the 2012 census, it should be noted that within this system of land use, soybeans and

corn grown for grain and silage accounts for greater than half of harvested cropland, totaling

163.5 million acres. Land dedicated to soybean and corn for silage had increased by 19 and

20 percent, respectively, between the 2007 and 2012 censuses (USDA NASS, 2014a). Corn is

the number one feed grain in the United States and processed soybeans is the largest source

of animal protein for feed in the world. Together, these two crops provide the main energy

ingredients in feed for livestock (USDA ERS, 2016a).

Eshel et al. (2015) expand on this situation, demonstrating that food production accounts

for the largest use of land and freshwater by humans. In more detail, they partition feed

and forage into classes, which are then analyzed by which types of livestock rely upon those

feed sources.

Through independent treatment of the main feed classes (grain and soy concentrates,

processed roughage, and pasture), Eshel et al. are able to calculate the different

production-based environmental burdens by livestock type -- which, it turns out, vary

widely. Within the current U.S. food system, of all livestock types, beef cattle consume

approximately 21% of grain and soy concentrates, 92% of pasture, and 87% of processed

roughage (Eshel et al., 2015).

13

Figure 3. Commodity Specialization of Farms in 2007 and 2012 (USDA NASS, 2014a).

While dairy cows, poultry, and hogs consume a greater proportion of concentrated feed,

beef cattle consume an overwhelming majority of all pasture and processed roughage--

defined prior as hay and silage. This results in an enormous burden on American land area,

which could be otherwise utilized-- such as crop food production for direct human

consumption, recreation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity and ecosystems, and human

14

settlement. It also results in issues of land degradation, overgrazing, native wildlife habitat

modification/fragmentation, overuse of water and soil resources available in those lands,

amongst other problems--detailed later in this report.

Indeed, beef cattle need to consume large amounts of forage or feed in order to reach the

size at which they are generally considered ready for slaughter, butchering, and packaging-

- then to be shipped out to markets for consumer purchase. In livestock production, this

plant matter must originate from land-based sources, either rangeland habitats (forage) or

agricultural crop systems (feed). Most cattle rely on feed eventually in their lifetime. In the

U.S., more than ⅔ of the 25 million cattle sold annually in the U.S. are finished in the four

Plain region states -- Kansas, Colorado, Texas, or Nebraska (USDA NASS, 2013).

Eshel et al. summarize the land used by the animal-based portion of the U.S. diet: “~0.6

million km2 [148,263,229 acres] for crops and processed roughage, equivalent to ~40% of all

U.S. cropland or ~2,000 m2 [.49 acres] per person. The total requirements, including pasture

land, amount to ~3.7 million km2 [914,289,911 acres], equivalent to ~40% of the total land

area of the United States or ~12,000 m2 per person [2.97 acres] (2014).”

Beef alone accounts for ~88% of all U.S. land used to produce animal-based calories, with

land use split between pasturelands (~79%), land devoted to production of processed

roughage (~7%), and land devoted to producing concentrated feed (~2%) (Eshel et al., 2014;

Eshel et al., 2010). Eshel and others also find that producing 1000 kCal of beef requires

approximately 28 times the land and 11 times the irrigation water as compared to protein

calories sourced from dairy, poultry, pork and eggs. Beef also results in the 5 times the

production of greenhouse gases, and puts 6 times the average reactive nitrogen load into

the environment (Eshel et al., 2014). This means that beef, on its own, as compared to

other common animal products in the U.S., has a greater impact and influence on global

climate change (due to the comparatively-high GHG loading) and water pollution (due to

the reactive nitrogen, which acts as a eutrophication agent).

Using land in the U.S. as a means to eventually produce beef is generally agreed to be an

inefficient way of generating calories and protein for human consumption. By moving up the

food chain in our consumption (carnivorous consumption versus herbivorous consumption),

the land usage necessary for our diet is 3-4x that necessary to produce similarly nutritious

plant food for consumption.

According to Eshel et al. (2010), calculated life cycle analyses demonstrate that plant based

diets use 2/3 to 3/4 less land than that required to produce similar nutritional outputs for

15

the average American diet, which is heavily reliant on animal protein. Their calculations

estimated that 109 million acres of land, which is greater than the size of the state of

California (105 million acres) would be available for alternative use if Americans subsisted

on a plant-based diet as compared to the average American diet. If this transition were to

be fully implemented, and this land were used for plant crop production, an additional 198–

260 million Americans could be sustainably fed (Eshel et al., 2010).

It has also been demonstrated by Reijnders and Soret (2003) that per unit protein, meat

production requires 6 to 17 times as much land as that for, specifically, soy crops. This is

important given that meat in the U.S. and other industrialized countries is often fueled via

the production of feed grains and soybeans. “Thus, the environmentally relevant effect of

meat production comprises both animal husbandry and the growth of feed grains and

soybeans that are eaten by the animals involved” (Reijnders and Soret, 2003).

Indeed, as restated by Reijnders and Soret (2003), Tilman et al. calculated that over the

next 50 years, “which is likely to be the final period of rapid agricultural expansion, demand

for food by a wealthier and 50% larger global population will be a major driver of global

environmental change.” They estimate that by the year 2050, 109 hectares [2.47 × 109 acres]

of natural ecosystems would be converted to agricultural use, which not only impacts total

land use, but also biodiversity and ecosystem functioning as detailed in this report’s

Biodiversity section.

Beef and Biodiversity

“Human carnivory is in fact the single greatest threat to overall biodiversity.” -Machovina and Feeley, 2014a

Biodiversity loss associated with food production is a complex web of causality. Agricultural

land expansion has a direct impact on species habitat loss, as Reijnders and Soret discuss

(2003). The externalities of agricultural production, such as air and water pollution,

pesticide use, and excess fertilization, also leads to stressed ecosystems driving down

species populations, as is discussed by Tilman et al. (2001).

Tilman et al. (2001) states that the transition of land into agricultural use is estimated to

be associated with “a 2.4- to 2.7-fold increase in nitrogen and phosphorus-driven

eutrophication of terrestrial, freshwater, and nearshore marine ecosystems, and

comparable increases in pesticide use.” Tilman et al. state that this eutrophication and

other associated degradation of non-agricultural lands will lead to severe habitat

destruction, ecosystem simplification, loss of ecosystem services, and species extinction.

They conclude by stating that “significant scientific advances and regulatory, technological,

16

and policy changes are needed to control the environmental impacts of agricultural

expansion (2001).”

While food production impacts biodiversity in a general sense, Brian Machovina and Kenneth

J. Feeley point to livestock production as the biggest culprit of species loss within this

system. This is due to the fact that livestock production has some association with up to 75%

of all agricultural lands and 30% of Earth’s land surface. As discussed prior in the Land

section of this report, agriculture accounts for the largest anthropogenic land use, and based

on the aforementioned, it could be stated that livestock production, specifically, holds this

title of largest use of land by humans.

Machovina also point to a changing and more affluent diet in China and continued forest loss

within the Amazon forest system, driven by livestock production, as being reasons to be

concerned for current trends in beef consumption (Machovina and Feeley, 2014a). They

discuss how meat consumption and production, as a general trend, is increasing in

developing countries that also happen to feature high richness and diversity of species--

leading to biodiversity loss in favor of agricultural systems that support meat production

(Machovina and Feeley, 2014a).

Another issue arises in the extirpation of local carnivorous species in the Western U.S. for

the purposes of ‘predator and prey control’ in rangelands where cattle are brought to graze.

As Bergstrom et al. discuss, “For more than 100 years, the US government has conducted

lethal control of native wildlife, to benefit livestock producers and to enhance game

populations, especially in the western states (2014).” As these researchers detail, just since

the year 2000, Wildlife Services (WS), an agency of the USDA, has intentionally used lethal

methods such as poisoning and guns to kill 2 million animals including 20 species of

carnivores, beavers, ground-dwelling squirrels, and nontarget species. This kill-off of native

species results in risks of biodiversity loss, destabilization of ecosystems leading to the

proliferation of invasive species and reduced ecosystem services (Bergstrom et al., 2014).

“Reducing and maintaining animal products to even 10% of the global human diet would enable the future global population to be fed on just the current

area of agricultural lands. Without a global decrease in per capita meat consumption by humans, the loss of natural habitats, large carnivores, and

biodiversity is certain to continue.” -Machovina and Feeley, 2014a

17

Beef and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Around the globe, livestock production is among the main contributors to greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions, accounting for 7.1 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent globally, or 14.5% of all

anthropogenic GHG emissions (Gerber et al., 2013). These emissions are driven by

deforestation and land use change in many places in the tropics throughout the globe. In

the U.S., where most arable land has already been cleared and converted to agricultural

land, agriculture accounts for 9% of national emissions totals (Eshel, 2016). As of 2013, the

U.S. EPA estimated that the United States emits 6,673 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent

annually (2016). According to Eshel et al. (2014) animal agriculture is responsible for 3.1 x

1012 kg CO2e or 5% of total U.S. emissions. Beef production, the livestock category with the

largest GHG impact, is responsible for 275 million metric tons CO2 equivalent or 46% of total

U.S. agricultural emissions. According to these calculations, that means that beef

production alone contributes around 4% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (Eshel, 2016).

Land Use Change. The most substantial portion of beef cattle’s carbon footprint is not

produced by the animals themselves, but by production of the cereal crops that the animals

are fed. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that feed

production and processing contributes 45% to the global livestock emissions (Gerber et al.,

2013). Of course, the magnitude of this impact is more nuanced depending on where those

crops were grown, and under what production model. For example, some of the highest

GHG impact feed comes from soybeans grown in Brazil’s Cerrado. Once a major sink for

carbon dioxide sequestration under its dense forests, large swaths of the area have been

deforested. Seventy percent of these deforested areas have subsequently been planted with

soybean (Niman, 2014). Granted, very little of Brazilian soybeans come to the U.S., so

deforested cropland does not represent as large of a share of beef’s GHG footprint in the

U.S. as it does globally (Niman, 2014). However, this example stands to illustrate that land

use change globally represents one of the main emission pathways through which beef

production displaces carbon and other GHGs into the atmosphere (Gerber et al., 2013). The

term “land use change” refers to the expansion of agricultural production into natural

habitats, either for feed production or for grazing (Gerber et al., 2013). It is estimated that

about 25% of the total GHG cost of feed comes from land use change. Though substantial,

land use change represents less than 10% of total livestock sector emissions (Gerber et al.,

2013). GHG emissions result from agriculture driven land use change.

“... to reduce the climate impact of your diet, the most important shift is to reduce your red meat consumption.”

-Hayes and Hayes, 2015

18

Nitrogen Production. Nitrogen production also contributes to the GHG impact of beef

production. This may seem at first counterintuitive, as many readers will correctly assert

that nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. However, the production of synthetic nitrogen through

the carbon-intensive Haber-Bosch process for application to croplands dedicated to the

production of animal feeds is an indirect impact of beef production. Similarly, through the

use of such fertilizers, concentrated nitrogen oxidizes when exposed to water, and produces

nitrogen oxide (N2O), which is a highly potent greenhouse gas, with 300 times more warming

potential per pound than carbon dioxide (U.S. EPA, 2016c). N2O represents 5% of total U.S.

GHG emissions, according to 2013 estimates. The sector that produces most of the U.S.’s

N2O is indeed agriculture (79%), through the use of nitrogen fertilizers in soil management

(74%), and in the decomposition of animal manure and urine (5%) (U.S. EPA, 2016c).

Animal Manure. The storage and processing of animal manure contributes 10% of

livestock agriculture’s annual greenhouse gas emissions (Gerber et al., 2013). Two primary

gases are involved in this process – Nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). As mentioned

above, manure decomposes, and the nitrogen within it first transforms into ammonia (NH3),

and once in the atmosphere is converted into nitrous oxide (N2O). Methane (CH4) is also

released into the atmosphere during this process. N2O emitted from manure management is

responsible for 5.2% of the livestock sector’s emissions by volume and CH4 from manure

management is responsible for 4.3% of sector emissions (Gerber et al, 2013).

Enteric fermentation, or the process by which ruminants break down plant fibers into

digestible form produces the second most greenhouse gases for the livestock sector.

According to the FAO, a total of 40% of sector emissions come from methane produced

through enteric fermentation (2013). Cattle represent the animal group that produces the

most methane globally, accounting for 77% of all enteric methane emissions (Gerber et al.,

2013). Some studies suggest that mature breeding cows produce larger amounts of enteric

methane than steers, heifers or breeding bulls (Beauchemin et al., 2010). This may indicate

that methane mitigation strategies should be aimed at this subsection of the global bovine

population.

It is true animal-based diets are more resource intense than plant-based diets. However,

even within animal-based diets, there is a gradient of environmental impact. As Eshel et al.

(2014) posit, beef production is unequivocally the most environmentally intense mode of

production. Greenhouse gas emissions are no exception. Eshel et al partitioned livestock’s

environmental impact in the U.S. among five livestock sectors – poultry, beef, dairy, pork,

and egg-laying chickens - according to the share of feed, both concentrate and roughage,

19

each sector consumed. Essentially, the environmental impact created by the production of

the feed consumed by the livestock group becomes that group’s impact on the environment.

This methodology represents a top-down approach in contrast to the more common, bottom-

up approach employed by life cycle analyses. Eshel et al. (2014) find that beef production

produces about five times more GHG emissions per calorie consumed than each of the other

four livestock categories.

Beef and Water

Just as the GHG impact of beef production comes from the feed used to grow these animals,

much of the water impact of beef production comes from the farming of grains, legumes,

and roughage to feed cattle. Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 70% of freshwater use,

and 40% of the crops produced with this water will go to feeding livestock (FAO UN, 2016;

FAO UN, 2012). In the U.S., more than half of the grain produced will be used to feed

livestock (Pimentel, 2008). While it takes large quantities to water to raise livestock, the

impact livestock have on water quality is also substantial. It is estimated that 30% of

nitrogen and phosphorous loading in drinking water is caused by animal agriculture

(Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Water Scarcity. It is important to note that not all water is created equal when

considering environmental impact. For example, most maize production in the Midwest

United States is rain fed – meaning it depends mostly or primarily on rainfall for its growth.

Indeed, this is typical of most developed countries, as 80% of cereal production in North

America and Europe is rainfed (Rosegrant et al., 2002). This type of water is referred to as

“green water.” “Blue water” can be simplified to mean irrigated water – either from surface

or groundwater reservoirs. “Blue water” draws have a greater environmental impact,

particularly when being pumped from aquifers underground where recharge rate is very

slow. In the United States, freshwater withdrawals from groundwater totaled 53,500 million

gallons per day, or 42% of total agricultural irrigation withdrawals in 2005 (USGS, 2016).

Intense consumption of groundwater reserves for agriculture has greatly contributed to

water crises in several key groundwater basins in the United States. The High Plains

(Ogallala) aquifer is the most pumped aquifer in the U.S., providing water to one fifth of

the country’s gross agricultural production, and is already depleted in some areas.

California’s Central Valley aquifer (the second most pumped aquifer), provides water to one

of the most productive land areas in the world – representing one sixth of the total irrigated

land in the U.S. (Faunt, 2009). By surface area, the Central Valley has the highest production

20

of fruits, vegetables and nuts in the U.S., and agricultural production accounts for the vast

majority of surface water and groundwater withdrawals in the area.

Of all other livestock categories, beef is the most water-intensive, requiring about eight

times more irrigated water (or “blue” water) per consumed calorie than other domesticated

livestock species to produce (Eshel et al., 2014). This has to do with quantity of crops used

to feed cattle. Cattle are the least efficient domesticated livestock animal in converting of

feed calories to consumable muscle and fat. Cattle require more than double the feed

calories required to create 1 human edible calorie than the second least efficient livestock

category pork. If pasture and roughage is included in this calculation, beef require more

than three times as many feed calories (Eshel et al., 2014). True, not all calories are created

equal. Beef and other animal flesh are important sources of complex proteins. That means

that in some cases, animal based calories deliver a higher nutritional return than non-animal

calories. However, cattle still require at least two to three times more feed calories to

produce a gram of protein than does pork, poultry, eggs, or dairy. The physiology of cattle

require larger quantities of nutrients and protein to produce edible muscle and fat than any

other domesticated livestock animal.

The connection to water consumption is clear. Less efficient conversion of feed nutrients

into muscle and fat means more demand for feed grains, which means more water

withdrawals for the production of feed crops. Indeed, since the 1970’s 40% of U.S. grain-fed

beef have been fattened on grains grown on Ogallala groundwater (Braxton-Little, 2009).

Today, entire sections of the Ogallala Aquifer face depletion. However, water quantity isn’t

the only resource affected by increased feed crop needs. Water quality suffers with

increased demand for feed crops as well.

Water Pollution. Beef production also has a profound impact on water quality –

specifically nutrient pollution. All living plants need three macronutrients to grow and

survive – nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. These three nutrients are naturally present

in soils, however centuries of intense agricultural production has rendered many of the

world’s soils deficient in these three nutrients. One way to increase soil fertility, and thus

production, on poor soils is to fix synthetic nitrogen through the Haber-Bosch process, and

apply it to fields. When application is done incorrectly, or as a result of heavy rains and

erosion, these fertilizers can end up in waterways instead of plants. Such runoff can catalyze

large algal blooms which use large amounts of the oxygen in the water, creating hypoxic

conditions under which aquatic life cannot survive. This contributes to large dead zones in

aquatic and marine ecosystems.

21

Nowhere are these dead zones more evident than in the Mississippi River Delta where it

converges with the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi river basin drains over one million square

miles of land in the U.S. Nutrient runoff containing nitrogen and phosphorous from

agricultural land in the basin has collected over decades at the delta, regularly creating

algal blooms and hypoxic conditions that threaten sensitive ecosystems within the region.

It is no coincidence that the majority of corn in the U.S. is produced within this watershed.

Though every state produces some corn, production is concentrated in the U.S. heartland

region which includes Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, eastern portions of South Dakota and

Nebraska, and western portions of Kentucky and Ohio (USDA ERS, 2015b). Indeed, of the 90

million acres used for U.S. corn production, this region and the states of Michigan,

Minnesota, and Wisconsin are where 90% of corn acreage exists, as shown in Figure 4 (USDA

ERS, 2015b).

Figure 4: U.S. Corn Production Centers (USDA NASS, 2014b)

22

Figure 5: Mississippi River Basin Drainage Map (USDA NRCS, 2016b)

If viewed on a map, (as in Figures 4 and 5), it becomes clear that the location of high

intensity corn production relative to the Mississippi River Basin has a profound impact on

nutrient loading in the region. Now consider that corn is the primary crop used for livestock

feed, representing 95% of total feed use. Indeed, over a third of all U.S. corn being grown

is used to feed livestock, and chief among the livestock consumers of corn—beef.

According to USDA (2012), three conditions must be met in the application of fertilizer to

minimize nitrogen runoff into waterways:

1) Applying nitrogen at the rate appropriate for the specific crop being grown – or the

agronomic rate.

2) Applying nitrogen at the correct time – i.e. not fertilizing fields in the fall for crops

planted in the spring.

3) Integrating, injecting, or otherwise mixing nitrogen fertilizer into the soil rather than

leaving it on the soil surface.

Unfortunately, according to 2010 USDA data 66% of planted corn acreage in the U.S. failed

to meet these basic nitrogen management criteria (Ribaudo et al, 2012).

23

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines precision agriculture as “a management system

that is information and technology based, is site specific and uses one or more of the

following sources of data: soils, crops, nutrients, pests, moisture, or yield, for optimum

profitability, sustainability, and protection of the environment” (McLoud et al., 2007). Even

if the implementation of precision agriculture techniques succeeded in reducing water

pollution due to crop production along the Mississippi River Basin, livestock’s impact on

water resources would still be significant.

Industrial agriculture, the system that allows for the low food prices we experience in the

United States, has created a method of systemized, intensified animal agriculture commonly

referred to as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). The USDA Agricultural

Research Services (ARS) estimated that U.S. animal agriculture produced almost 1 million

US short tons of manure (dry matter) per day in 2001. The vast majority of this manure (86%)

was estimated to be produced by animals held in confinement (Pew Commission on Industrial

Farm Animal Production).

The unintended by-product of this model is vast quantities of manure that exceed local

ecosystems’ capacity to safely absorb. The storage and disposal of this nutrient rich matter

is thus problematic. For chickens and poultry, these large quantities of manure are stored

in heaping on-site piles, seen in a PBS Frontline special about poultry pollution in

Chesapeake Bay (2009). During heavy rainfall events, the manure and its associated

nutrients are released into the watershed and make their way into streams, rivers, and lakes

in the area. Similarly, concentrated hog farms liquefy manure by adding water, and store it

in large lagoons. While not only contributing to large amounts of methane emissions, the

water from these pools of manure can leach down into deep layers of soil, contaminating

groundwater resources. Note that, as Nicolette Hahn Niman asserts, chicken, pork, and

most recently dairy cows spend a larger percentage of their lives in CAFOs than in less

concentrated feeding models like pasture (Niman, 2014).

It is true that most beef cattle in the United States spend the majority of their lives grazing

on varying types of grasslands and pastures. However, for the vast majority (80%) of cattle

slaughtered in the U.S., the last four to five months of their lives are spent in feedlots (USDA

ERS, 2012). These cattle are mostly steers and heifers raised in cow-calf operations until

they weigh about 550-800 pounds, then they are sold to a commercial feeder. While in the

feedlot, cattle are fed 70-90% grain and protein concentrates. The majority of feedlots

operate in the Great Plains region. While most feedlots are only capable of holding fewer

than 1000 head of cattle at a time, these feedlots represent a relatively small share of beef

produced in the U.S. Indeed, the vast majority of beef (80-90%) are finished in feedlots

24

capable of holding 1000 or more animals, with feedlots with capacities of ~32,000 head of

cattle at a time producing 40% of marketed beef in America (USDA ERS, 2012).

Feedlot operations are harmful to the environment in two major ways. First, many are

located in the Great Plains region – literally on top of the water-stressed Ogallala aquifer.

As mentioned before, many of the grains fed to these cattle as 70-90% of their diets are

grown on Ogallala fossil water. Second, the amount of manure generated by the large

quantity of animals processed in highly concentrated feeding facilities creates an

environmental liability. The other 20% of commercial U.S. beef comes from “non-fed”

cattle, or those that have not been fed feedlot rations for finishing. These include primarily

breeding stock (i.e. beef and dairy cows as well as beef and dairy bulls) (USDA ERS, 2012).

Eshel et al. (2014) estimate that the production of beef in the U.S. results in 182 grams of

reactive nitrogen entering the environment per consumed calorie. This is about four times

the amount of nitrogen per calorie associated with pork production, and six times the

amount of reactive nitrogen associated with poultry (Eshel et al, 2014).

25

CHAPTER II: Public Health Concerns of Beef Consumption

In addition to environmental impacts, there are public health implications associated with

beef consumption. Specifically, consuming beef is associated with a higher risk of

contracting various types of cancer, type II diabetes, stroke, cardiovascular disease, and

variant-Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (IARC, 2015; Feskens et al., 2013; Kaluza et al., 2012;

Song et al., 2004; CDC, 2015). Additional concerns include a multi-generational decreased

effectiveness of antibiotics in both humans and livestock, and an increased exposure to

pesticides and other environmental pollutants for humans. In this chapter, we present

evidence for the connections between the abovementioned ailments and red meat

consumption as a whole. The latter sections in this chapter focus on public health concerns

surrounding consumption of beef specifically.

Red Meat and Cancer

“Although some health agencies already recommend limiting intake of meat, these recommendations are aimed mostly at reducing the risk of

other diseases. With this in mind, it was important for IARC to provide authoritative scientific evidence on the cancer risks associated with

eating red meat and processed meat.” -International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015

Among the most controversial ailments associated with beef consumption is cancer. In 2015,

the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

released findings from their review of over 800 scientific studies from the past 20 years

regarding the consumption of red meat (which includes beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton,

horse, and goat), and concluded that consumption of red meat was likely to be associated

with colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. More specifically, IARC found sufficient

evidence that for every 50-gram portion of processed red meat consumed per day, the risk

of contracting colorectal cancer increased by 18% (IARC, 2015). However, the IARC

recognizes that there are nutritional benefits associated with consuming red meat, and thus

recommends that governments around the world use this information to limit the intake of

meat by reconstructing dietary guidelines (IARC, 2015).

Contrary to the findings of the IARC study, a 2010 study by McAfee et al. (funded in part by

the Livestock and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland) contends that there is no strong

evidence to support the claim that there is a link between consumption of red meat

26

(including beef) and any type of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Instead, the authors argue

that moderate consumption of red meat has a long-term positive effect on human health

due to its positive influence on fatty acid profiles and essential nutrient intake (McAfee, et

al., 2010). Another study by Domingo et al. supports these findings, and asserts that red

meat in of itself is not carcinogenic. Rather, red meat is potentially carcinogenic because

of the traces of environmental pollutants that may be contained within the fat. To reduce

the risk of cancer from consuming red meats, the authors argue that this risk can be

significantly reduced if consumers remove fat prior to cooking. (Domingo, 2016).

Additionally, according to the National Cancer Institute, cooking beef using high-

temperature methods (i.e. grilling over an open flame or pan frying) can form chemicals

such as heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—laboratory

experiments have revealed that these chemicals can increase the risk of cancer.

Furthermore, beef that is cooked to “well done” has a relatively higher concentration of

HCAs, thus consuming beef cooked in this way further increases cancer risk (National Cancer

Institute, 2015).

“Increased consumptions of 1 serving per day of fresh red meat, processed meat, and total red meat were associated with 11%, 13%, and 11% higher risk

of total stroke, respectively.” -Kaluza et al., 2012

Red Meat and Other Chronic Ailments

In addition to potentially being linked to cancer, several studies show that there is a link

between consumption of red meat and type II diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. In a 2013

study, Feskens and Sluik reviewed the evidence concerning the occurrences of several

diseases and consumption of red meat, and found that consumption of red meat is strongly

associated with both type II diabetes and coronary heart disease. These conclusions

regarding type II diabetes coincide with the conclusions of a 2004 study by Song et al., who

identified a positive association between consumption of red meat and increased risk of

type II diabetes in women 45 years and older (Feskens et al., 2013; Song et al., 2004). In

regard to heart disease, the American Heart Association conducted a study of Swedish men

between the ages of 45 to 79, and found a link between consumption of processed red meats

and heart failure—specifically, those men who consumed 75 grams or more of processed red

meat per day were at a higher risk of heart failure than those who consumed lower

amounts. However, this study points out that no such link has been established between

consumption of unprocessed red meats and heart failure (Kaluza, 2014).

27

Additional support for the link between heart disease, type II diabetes, and processed red

meat consumption is provided by a 2012 study, in which Micha et al. found that those who

consumed 50 grams or more of processed red meats daily had a 51% higher risk of type II

diabetes and a 42% higher risk of heart disease (Micha et al., 2012). Likewise, a recent study

assessed the impact of processed and unprocessed red meat consumption on Australian

women aged 30-74 and found that, overall, there is a positive association between

consumption of red meat and cardiovascular disease (Bovalino et al., 2015). Furthermore,

the authors concluded that processed red meat has a stronger link to heart disease

compared to fresh red meat. Lastly, in regard to stroke, studies have shown that there is a

link between consumption of red meat and increased risk of stroke—in particular, the

researchers found that consumption of one serving of fresh red meat per day increases a

person’s chance of having a stroke by 11% (Kaluza et al., 2012).

Mad Cow Disease

“Currently, there is no cure for vCJD and it is always fatal.” -CDC, 2015

Mad cow disease, also called bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is a neurological

disorder of cattle that is believed to have first been transmitted to humans in the1970s—

the first confirmed case was in 1984, in the United Kingdom. The number of new cases of

BSE peaked between 1993 and 1995, with over 14,000 cases reported in the UK during this

time. In the years following 1995, the number of cases of BSE decreased dramatically, and

only 4 cases of BSE were confirmed in the U.S. through 2015 (Figure 6) (CDC, 2015).

Nevertheless, according to Hayes and Hayes, BSE can stay dormant in the human body for

decades, and while the risks of contracting BSE in the UK are higher than in the U.S.,

consumers still should consider reducing beef consumption (Hayes, 2015).

Cows are infected with BSE through eating feed that contains “neural material” (i.e., spinal

cord tissue, brain tissue, and bone meal) of other cattle, sheep, and pigs that carry some

form of BSE (Yam, 2009); although BSE was first detected in the UK, it was spread to other

parts of the world via the selling of contaminated feed. In the years before the first

confirmed case of BSE, meat processing plants boiled the animal parts to be used as feed

several times over, to separate the parts to be used as feed, and to kill off any lingering

bacteria and pathogens in the parts. However, due to a rise in oil prices in the 1970s (which

increased electricity costs), this extra boiling process was eliminated and replaced with

separation by machine. This led to the flourishing of harmful prions, which are the vessels

that transmit the disease (Yam, 2009; CDC, 2015).

28

Figure 6: The number of cases of BSE reported since 1993 (CDC, 2015)

One reason why eating beef contaminated with BSE is risky is that it leads to the

development of variant-Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans. This disease is the

human-equivalent of BSE in cattle, and it has the same effect on humans as it does in cattle

(i.e., neurodegenerative disorders). Currently, no cure for vCJD exists and it is always fatal.

Still, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the chance of consuming BSE-

contaminated and contracting vCJD is extremely small; between 1996 and today there have

been 175 of cases of vCJD reported worldwide, and three of those cases occurred in the

U.S. (CDC, 2015; World Health Organization, 2012).

Antibiotic Resistance

“Antimicrobial resistance is one of our most serious health threats.” -CDC, 2013

According to the United States Food and Drug Administration, approximately 70 percent of

all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used for livestock and poultry (U.S. FDA, 2015). Of these,

an estimated 15-17 million pounds of antibiotics are used each year for cattle specifically

(Barrett and Armelagos, 2013). Antibiotics are given to cattle as a preventive measure

(against contracting disease in, especially, overcrowded feedlots) as well as to enhance

29

growth; it has also become common practice to use antibiotics in this way due to the

negative effects that a corn-based diet (rather than a grass-based diet) has on the health of

cattle. Growing cattle in confined feeding operations and feeding them a corn-based diet

puts them at a higher risk of contracting illnesses, and some cattle ranchers believe that

giving them antibiotics preemptively lowers this risk (CDC, 2014; Russell and Rychlik,

2001). Furthermore, cattle raisers discovered that if cattle are administered small doses of

antibiotics daily, they gain three percent more weight (Obenchain and Spark, 2016).

Giving small doses of antibiotics to cattle is risky because it enables some of the bacteria

living in cattle to survive and multiply because of their resistance to antibiotics. Thus, when

these cattle are slaughtered, some of these antibiotic-resistant bacteria are transmitted

into the meat destined for consumers, which leads to increased antibiotic-resistance in the

human population (NRDC, 2016). Scientists estimate that in the U.S., approximately two

million people contract antibiotic-resistant infections (such as Methicillin-resistant

Staphylococcus aureus, colloquially referred to as MRSA) per year; out of those two million

people, approximately 23,000 will die as a result of these infections (NRDC, 2016). Even

more concerning is that the CDC predicts that antibiotic-resistance will prevail for many

years to come and there may come a time when our last-resort, life-saving antibiotics will

no longer work to treat infections. Consequently, many lives will be lost to relatively simple

infections that doctors will no longer be able to treat (NRDC, 2016).

30

CHAPTER III: THE ECONOMICS OF BEEF

“In a rational world, consumers in the rich countries should be willing to pay more for a food in order to lower the environmental impacts of its production, especially when

that higher cost and the resulting lower consumption would also improve agriculture’s long-term prospects and benefit the health of the affected population.”

-Smil, 2013

Research conducted for this report did not reveal an existing comprehensive economic

analysis of the environmental economic costs of beef in the U.S. The analysis we propose

is based on neoclassical economic concepts, which are economic concepts that the U.S.

government and many countries in the world follow. Developed countries specifically are

also characterized by high beef consumption as demonstrated in Figure 7. This further

illustrates the need to assess the full environmental economic costs of beef. Our analysis is

intended to serve as a starting point for consumers and policymakers to consider the true

cost of beef, a cost that is not reflected in the market prices of beef today.

Figure 7. This image maps countries according to their per capita meat consumption. The darker the color, the more meat is consumed per capita. The U.S. is ranked among the highest. Source: UN FAO, 2013.

As discussed in Chapter IV of this report about existing policies, environmental impacts of

the beef market are almost entirely neglected by the U.S. government, producers and

consumers. Results of this neglect are significant negative externalities in the form of soil

depletion, water pollution, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, dead zones and more.

In other words, manufacturing processes of beef cause damages to people and the

31

environment, for which the parties to the transactions - beef producers and consumers, are

not paying (Kolstad, 2011).

Beef and Environmental Economics

The application of neoclassical economic concepts to environmental problems is a growing

field of economic research and economic policy. The initial purpose of valuing ecosystem

services in economic terms was to communicate to the public the fact that all economic

activity is based on finite environmental resources (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010).1

Ecosystem services are ecosystem functions that benefit humans. In the past, it made sense

not to pay for ecosystem services because our use of them was in balance with natural

processes. Now this is no longer true. Human induced changes to the environment are far

exceeding the pace of natural processes that sustain the health of the environment.

Since its inception, the notion of the monetary value of nature has developed beyond

educational purposes and is implemented by policymakers to quantify ecosystem services in

decision-making processes. Just recently, the Obama administration issued a memorandum

for executive departments and agencies with the title “Incorporating Ecosystem Services

into Federal Decision Making.” Realizing the vital contribution of nature, or ecosystem

services, to the economic and social well-being of our society, the Obama administration

now requires of all federal agencies to develop policies that integrate ecosystem services

valuation into decisions of the Federal government (U.S. EOP, 2015). This has yet to be

implemented into the beef industry.

For the purpose of this report, we look at the economic value of nature to provide insight

into the environmental damages of the minimally regulated beef industry and its supply

chain. Putting a number to, or assessing the harm in monetary terms establishes the common

thread of this report: costs of beef production grossly outweigh benefits and therefore beef

consumption has to be reduced. The following section will consist of an overview of the

American beef market and present some key economic characteristics of the industry. It

will then move on to identify and describe specific environmental costs associated with beef

production drawing from the ecosystem services concept.

1 The idea of applying economic concepts to nature was first introduced in the early 1960s, but received wide attention only in the late 1990s, with Costanza et al.’s seminal article “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital” published in Nature in 1997 (Costanza et al.,

1997; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010).

32

Economic Characteristics of the American Beef Market

“Thanks to farm subsidies, the fine collaboration between agribusiness and

Congress, soy, corn and cattle became king... It was during this period that the cycle

of dietary and planetary destruction began, the thing we're only realizing just now.” -Bittman, 2008

Size. The U.S. has the largest beef industry in the world (USDA ERS, 2012). It is a $60.8

billion market, which is 0.3% of the total U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (USDA NASS,

2014a; World Bank, 2014). This relatively low portion of GDP originating from beef

production suggests that reduction in consumption will have limited effects on U.S.

economic vitality.

Demand. Approximately 90% of beef produced in the U.S. is consumed domestically (USDA

ERS, 2012). The demand for beef in the U.S. is not expected to grow, and data collected by

the USDA shows a decline in demand over the last decade congruent with trends in other

affluent countries (see Figure 8; Smil, 2013). Growing awareness to the adverse health

effects associated with overconsumption of beef explains the drop in demand (Haspel,

October 2015). The high percentage of consumption of local beef together with the

downward sloping trend in demand illuminate the potential and momentum of reducing

consumption locally.

Figure 8. This graph shows the total beef consumption in the U.S. for the years 2002-2014. Source: USDA.

Contractual Relationships. The agricultural sector functions through the use of

contractual agreements between farmers and buyers of agricultural outputs (Heller and

Keoleian, 2000; Hayenga et al., 2001; Saitone and Sexton, 2012; Sumner, 2014). Contractual

33

relationships significantly reduce farmers’ risks, protecting them from price swings, securing

income, and sharing the costs. The downsides of the contractual gains are the losses, or

externalities, not accounted for in these agreements. Externalities are costs incurred on

society at large, which are not paid for by the parties to the transaction. With beef,

externalities include the negative environmental impacts and negative health impacts

discussed in this report. As we will see, factoring in the externalities to the price of beef

will reveal its true price, a price that is significantly higher than its price today.

Other than omitting negative externalities, contracts usually impose specific management

controls, taking away the decision power of the individual farmers and worsening the

negative impacts (Heller and Keoleian, 2000; Reganold et al., 2011). For example, beef

production farmers who entered into an agreement with a meatpacker may be required

under the terms of the contract to administer unnecessary medication and provide certain

types of cheap feed, which is harmful to the animal. In a neoclassical economic system

where producers are expected to maximize profits at the expense of people and the

environment, contracts demonstrate the race to the bottom this system induces. If

management decisions remained in the hands of farmers that are in direct contact with the

animals, the land and the community, it is likely that many of them would choose better

practices for animal health, human health, and the environment (Hayes, 2015). Why these

decisions were taken away from farmers is explained in the next paragraph.

Figure 9. This graph juxtaposes the number of farms and the market value of agricultural products sold showing that a small number of farms hold a significant portion of the market and the increase in numbers of such farms. Source: USDA 2012 Census of Agriculture

34

Market Concentration. The total number of farms in the U.S. has declined by 70%

between the years 1935-2002, while the area of farmland remained relatively unchanged

(Angelo, 2010). The agricultural sector is now much more concentrated, with a smaller

number of businesses controlling the bulk of the industry. Four beef packers dominate the

beef market, processing 85% of all slaughtered beef in the U.S. (USDA ERS, 2016a). The four

main meatpackers are JBS Beef, Tyson Foods, Cargill Meat and National Beef Packing

(Ogburn, 2011). This indicates a problem of competitiveness and of a power imbalance

between meatpackers and farmers who supply the cattle (Adjemian et al, 2016). The U.S.

Department of Agriculture in their 2012 Agricultural Census revealed that 5.7% of farms are

responsible for 75% of total agricultural sales (USDA NASS, 2014a). Industrialization of

agriculture also led to a dramatic decrease in the number of farm workers. Heller and

Keoleian note a 70% decrease in farm workers between the years 1950-1998 (Heller and

Keoleian, 2000). They also point out the lower portion of labor expenses in beef and cash

grain2 farms in comparison with specialty farms (fruits and tree nuts farms and vegetable

farms): On beef and cash grains farms labor expenses make about 5% of the total, whereas

for other farms labor is between 37%-45% of total expenses. These numbers suggest that the

evolution of the agricultural sector towards consolidation reduced the number of jobs in the

sector. In addition, reports of watchdog organizations document extremely low wages and

child labor in agriculture business operations (Solomon and Motts, 1998; Human Rights

Watch, 2000).

Subsidies. The Farm Bill is the main policy governing U.S. agriculture, including farmer

subsidy programs. Government subsidies play a key role in this distortion of the market by

keeping prices of corn, the number one feed crop in the U.S., artificially low (Reganold,

2011). Usually subsidies in the agricultural sector are implemented to support a market,

which is not always profitable because of steep price fluctuations. They further aim to

mitigate the market’s exposure to high risks in the form of climate variability and to serve

national interest rooted in the belief that food security can be achieved by having a stable

agricultural industry. Today’s farm subsidies do not fulfill these objectives (Stiglitz, 2013).

As explained above, the structure of the agricultural sector has evolved over time from a

composition of small farms towards a concentrated market that resembles a big industry

dominated by few actors. Farm subsidies date back to when U.S. agriculture was comprised

of mostly small farms. Subsidies then provided real income stability to farmers. Today,

despite the change in the market, historical subsidies remain in place awarding big subsidies

2 Cash grains are grains grown in large amounts for commercial purposes, such as corn, soy, wheat and cotton.

35

to large producers, thus, exacerbating negative externalities or costs incurred by society at

large.

Numerous journal articles and op-eds have been written about the shortcomings of U.S.

government subsidies in the agricultural sector. Instead of being used strictly to stabilize

the market, farm subsidies today encourage overproduction by tying payments to production

levels (Angelo, 2010; Goodwin and Smith, 2013). The more a farmer produces a subsidized

crop, the more money the farmer receives from the government. This incentivizes farmers

to: 1) switch to commodity crops, such as corn, which are heavily subsidized and to stop

growing other varieties, and 2) maximize production at the expense of the environment,

animals, and people. Producing yields requires large amounts of fertilizer, pesticides and

irrigation water. It neglects the diversity and quality of crops (Stiglitz, 2013).

Figure 10. Distribution between crops of one type of federal subsidy - the crop insurance program. Corn received the largest subsidies. Source: Lusk, 2016.

The government currently allocates most of the farm subsidies to five crops: corn, soybeans,

wheat, cotton and rice (Lusk, 2016; Environmental Working Group, n.d.). Figure 10 shows

the distribution of one form of subsidy - the crop insurance subsidy program, with corn

receiving the highest subsidy in 2013. These subsidies directly affect the beef industry. That

is because the top crop, corn, accounts for over 95% of total feed grain production and use,

and because nearly half of the corn grown in the U.S. is used to feed animals, as shown in

Figure 11 (USDA ERS, 2015b). A portion of the corn grown to produce ethanol has a byproduct

that is also turned to feed grain for cattle. Feed growers and the livestock industry

themselves attest to the strong ties between the two interest groups, which work in close

collaboration to promote their businesses (National Corn Growers Association, 2008).

36

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2012 Census, cattle and corn are the top

two agricultural commodities. The results demonstrate the interdependence of these two

commodities and their domination of the entire U.S. agricultural sector. The census also

revealed that 29% of U.S. farms specialize in beef cattle making it the largest category of

operation in the U.S. agricultural sector.

Figure 11. Total amount of corn produced in the U.S. between the years 1980-2015, divided into three categories of use: feed and residual use, alcohol for fuel use (ethanol production) and other food, seed and industrial uses. Source: USDA Economic Research Service.

The Environmental Working Group calculated a total of $94.3 billion in subsidies for corn

grown between the years 1995-2014. It is the crop receiving the largest subsidies (Angelo,

2010). These numbers explain the increase in corn grown in the US as shown in figure 12.

Subsidies create a market for corn that otherwise would not exist at this magnitude (Angelo,

2010). Also, subsidies have exacerbated the environmental costs of beef by encouraging the

artificial growth of this industry, thus leading to damage to people and the environment.

One economic theory that explains unjustifiable governmental benefits and exemptions

from regulations is regulatory capture. Coined by the Nobel laureate George Stigler,

regulatory capture is a situation where political power depends on money and not on votes

(Dal Bó, 2006). The beef industry was able to exert political pressure and influence the

government because the general public had limited incentives to act upon the negative

outcomes of a subsidized and unregulated beef industry. A lack of awareness to negative

externalities prevents collective action and allows selfish politicians to gain power in a

corrupt manner.

37

Figure 12. This graph illustrates the growth in corn production in the U.S. from the year 1960 to 2015. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Damages to Ecosystem Services in Beef Production.

The global food system is a driver of many environmental and social problems. Within the

global food system, livestock is a major contributor to environmental degradation, and

within the livestock sector, beef is the major contributor to negative environmental impacts

(Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2010; Eshel et al., 2014). The environmental impacts are upsetting

the equilibrium required to sustain critical ecosystem services for human well-being.

Ecosystem services are goods and services provided by nature, which are fundamental to

humanity’s well-being and, at times, survival. Examples include air quality, soil formation,

clean water and crop pollination. For ecosystems to continue to function for our

acknowledged benefit, their use has to be sustainable, that is, they have to be used in a

way that ensures their continued existence (Arrow et al., 1995; De Groot et al., 2002). Beef

is contributing to the depletion and degradation of many ecosystem services. Excluding a

very small percentage of boutique beef farms, it is an industry standard to externalize the

environmental costs described in Chapter I. Neglect of ecosystem services in beef production

is therefore a market failure, which has to be corrected through government regulation

supported by an educated public.

The calculation of the monetary value of ecosystem services lost to beef production is

complex and beyond the scope of this report. Some ecosystem services are impossible to

valuate because the value of the service is infinite or because little is known about the full

impacts (Costanza et al., 1997). As a starting point, we evaluate the magnitude of the

ecosystem services seriously disturbed by beef. Below is a non-exhaustive discussion of

38

depleting ecosystem services resulting from beef production. The classification, description

and valuation of ecosystem services is based on a standardized framework proposed by de

Groot et al. article published in Ecological Economics (de Groot et al., 2002).

Climate Regulation. Beef is the livestock category with the largest greenhouse gas

footprint (Eshel et al., 2014). Manmade greenhouse gas emissions alter the ecosystem

service of climate regulation by changing the composition of atmospheric gases. This leads

to climate change, which makes the climate conditions of the planet less favorable for

humans (de Groot et al., 2002). Beef is responsible for 4% of total US greenhouse gas

emissions, or 275 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (Eshel, 2016). The U.S. Government

published a conservative estimation of the social cost of a metric ton of carbon emitted in

the year 2015 - $105 (Interagency Working Group, 2013). This cost implies a staggering total

cost of $28.8 billion of the beef market to climate regulation in the year 2015 alone.

Water Supply. Beef is the most water intensive livestock product because of the large

amounts of grain that is required to feed the booming U.S. beef industry (Eshel et al., 2014).

As stated in chapter I on the environmental impacts, growing grains to feed cattle

contributes to the water crises facing key groundwater basins in the U.S. Over-pumping of

groundwater diminishes the vital ecosystem service of water supply by physically destroying

water storage, causing land subsidence, diminishing surface water flows and degrading

water quality (Moran et al., 2014).

A study focused on the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer in western Kansas estimates that

current trends of irrigation will lead to near complete depletion of the aquifer in Kansas in

50 years (Steward et al., 2013). Interestingly, the western Kansas congressional district

ranks highest in the nation in total agricultural revenue, the majority of revenue coming

from corn-fed cattle (Steward et al., 2013). The large majority of the corn is irrigated using

Ogallala groundwater (Steward et al., 2013). According to Kansas department of Agriculture

“agriculture is the largest economic driver in Kansas, valued at more than $62 billion,

accounting for 43% of the state’s total economy” (Kansas Department of Agriculture, n.d.).

Therefore, the cost of unsustainable treatment of water supply cannot be overstated for

the state of Kansas, and lessons can be drawn to other regions experiencing severe

groundwater depletion like the Central Valley in California, which supplies ¼ of U.S.’s food

(USGS, n.d.).

“The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.” -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1937

39

Soil Retention. Most agricultural land in the U.S. is losing soil at an unsustainable rate due

to mismanaged cropland and overgrazing (Pimentel 2003; Hayes, 2015; USDA NASS, 2007).

One inch of lost soil in the US can take hundreds of years to replace (Hayes 2015). Healthy

soil provides essential ecosystem services: gas regulation by capturing carbon; water

regulation through the retention of water to allow for better crop yields; nutrient cycling

which is critical for growing food (eroded soil has low nitrogen levels); waste treatment by

filtering and breaking down contaminants (Costanza et al., 1997; Pimentel et al., 1995).

Soil depletion may also affect plant composition and cause loss of biodiversity. Erosion in

one place can damage infrastructure in other places and contaminate waterways with

excessive nutrients and pesticides (Pimentel et al., 1995).

To overcome erosion and nutrient depletion as a result of the erosion, U.S. farmers increase

their use of fertilizers. Fertilizer production is fossil-fuel based and responsible for 74% of

total U.S. nitrous oxide emissions in the year 2013 (U.S. EPA, n.d.c). The soil’s reduced

water retention is overcome by pumping groundwater, which also adds energy costs and

increases emissions of agricultural production (Pimentel et al, 1995). Since soil is such a

vital infrastructure to the ecosystem, its monetary value according to Costanza et al. is

infinite (Costanza et al., 1997). Pimentel et al. valued soil erosion costs in the U.S. at $44

billion per year (Pimentel et al., 1995).

Waste Treatment. Hundreds of chemicals are used in the supply chain of the beef

industry. Pesticides and fertilizers are applied to feed grains, antibiotics and hormones are

administered to healthy cattle and tenderizing chemicals are used in beef processing. All

these chemicals end up polluting rivers and streams, groundwater and soil, not to mention

our bodies. The ecosystem service of waste treatment, responsible for the filtration and

break down of contaminants, is dwindling. The EPA has invested minimally in testing those

chemicals and lacks the capacity to test new chemicals introduced to the market (Hayes,

2015). As a result, the harmful effects of toxic chemicals are not fully understood, hence

are difficult to quantify.

The decline in the ecosystem service of waste treatment caused by beef can be

demonstrated using two examples: dead zones from nitrogen pollution and use of

antibiotics. Since humans discovered a way to produce reactive nitrogen and use it as

fertilizer, the natural nitrogen cycle has been significantly altered (Pelletier and Tyedmers,

2010). The amount of reactive nitrogen poured into the environment so far is more than

double the natural level, and it continues to rise (Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2010).

40

Nature’s waste treatment service is no longer capable of breaking down the excess reactive

nitrogen. Annual dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico illustrate some of the threats of nitrogen

pollution. Nitrogen flowing from corn fields in the Heartland region through the Mississippi

River reaches the Gulf of Mexico and creates deadly conditions for marine life in the Gulf

affecting fisheries, wildlife and recreation (Rabotyagov et al., 2014).

Another example of a chemical that is administered in large quantities to beef cattle is

antibiotics. 80% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are administered to healthy animals (Hayes,

2015). As with many man-made chemicals, the consequences of the widespread use of

antibiotics are not fully understood. One well-established consequence of the unregulated

use of antibiotics is the introduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (Gross, 2013). The U.S.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classified such bacteria as urgent, serious and

concerning (CDC, 2013). In a 2013 report, the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention

estimate that the economic costs of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the U.S. economy are

about $55 billion a year (CDC, 2013).

Table 1 summarizes some of the unaccounted for costs of degraded ecosystem services. The

total amount of money lost every year due to the U.S. beef market’s externalization of

environmental costs is $127.8 billion. This number falls short of incorporating all ecosystem

services because of the difficulties in quantifying them. It also excludes the costs associated

with health problems linked to overconsumption of red meat.

Table 1. Summary Table of Unaccounted Costs of Degraded Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem service/Externality Annual estimated cost

Climate regulation $28.8 billion

Water supply N/A

Biodiversity N/A

Soil retention $44 billion

Waste treatment (only for antibiotic-resistant bacteria) $55 billion

Dead Zones N/A

TOTAL $127.8 billion

A pound of ground beef today costs $3.96. If society was to partially internalize the $127.8

billion in negative externalities listed in the table above, the price for a pound of beef would

be $9.48, 240% higher.

41

CHAPTER IV: REVIEW OF EXISTING POLICY

Environmental Policy

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), for the purposes of cattle, are defined

as enterprises that hold 1000 heads of beef cattle or 700 dairy cows for more than 45 days

per year as an efficient and cost-effective means of raising cattle to market weight (USDA

NRCS, n.d.). Due to their size and concentrated nature, CAFOs face challenges disposing of

vast amounts of manure on a limited amount of land. Manure application can be an

environmentally benign way of fertilizing soil and restoring nutrients such as nitrogen and

phosphorous. However, manure management can be environmentally problematic for

CAFOs, primarily because of the amount and composition of CAFO manure, which can

contain nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, hormones, antibiotics, and other potentially

harmful chemicals (Hribar, 2010). A given land area has limited soil absorptive capacity,

and improper manure storage in man-made lagoons or leaching from field applications can

contaminate ground and surface water, impacting local communities (Hribar, 2010).

The U.S. has federal regulations intended to protect and maintain the integrity and health

of air and water and control the release of pollutants into the environment, including the

Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), the Clean Air Act, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), and the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Below we discuss how

these regulations, and exemptions herein, apply to the beef industry.

The Clean Water Act. Farming activities, such as planting, harvesting, and moving

livestock - have traditionally been exempt from regulation under the Clean Water Act, which

aims to preserve water quality and typically requires permits to discharge pollutants into

protected U.S. surface waters (U.S. EPA, 2015b). The Obama Administration’s Clean Water

Rule, effective August 2015, clarifies bodies of water under federal protection to include

upstream waterways that “significantly affect” already protected downstream waters,

rivers and lakes (Clean Water Rule, 2015). However, the Clean Water Rule preserves

agricultural exemptions by omitting ditches not constructed in streams and by defining

protected tributaries as those showing “physical features of flowing water” (U.S. EPA,

2015b). These caveats prevent regulation of agricultural field runoff containing pollutants

and excess nutrients and of man-made ditches not constructed out of streams and not acting

like streams, including water treatment ponds and lagoons, irrigation ditches, and

agricultural stormwater runoff (U.S. EPA, 2015b). Ironically, the EPA refers to these

42

agricultural water non-point source polluting methods as “common sense exclusions from

jurisdiction,” although the NAtional Water Quality Assessment lists it as the largest

contributor to water quality impairments in surveyed rivers and stream, and also fails to

address pollution issues concerning groundwater or tile drains (U.S. EPA, 2015b; U.S. EPA,

2015c).

Created through the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) is a permitting program that does allow for federal regulation of “point source”

agricultural pollution. CAFOs that discharge to surface waters fall into the category of point

source polluters and must apply for an NPDES permit with a developed and implemented

manure management plan (U.S. EPA, 2015a). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

can authorize states, tribal and territorial governments to issue NPDES permits, and 46

states in the U.S. currently have permitting authority though the EPA retains oversight

responsibility (U.S. EPA, 2016a). As of 2003, the EPA takes an “environmental priorities”

approach towards enforcing NPDES in an initiative called Permitting for Environmental

Results (Hanlon, n.d.). This strategy prioritizes issuing permits that are deemed

“environmentally significant” within or among watersheds, so that higher-priority (and more

environmentally damaging) discharge permits will be issued before lower-priority cases.

Clean Air Regulation. CAFOs release pollutants into the air, as well as into ground and

surface water. Problematic air emissions include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane and

particulate matter, which can negatively impact human health (Hribar, 2010). Land

application of manure can cause volatilization of ammonia, creation of ground-level ozone

release of particulate matter, and the creation of nitrous oxide, while anaerobic

decomposition can release hydrogen sulfide and methane (Hribar, 2010). Particulate

matter, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide impact human health (Hribar, 2010). The

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA,

commonly known as Superfund), the Clean Air Act, and the Emergency Planning and

Community Right to Know (EPCRA) all govern the types of air pollutants that CAFOs can

emit. The EPA, however, rendered CERCLA moot in controlling agricultural emissions by

passed a rule effective in 2009 that exempts all farms from reporting their release of

hazardous substances relating to animal waste (U.S. EPA, 2009). This exemption held even

if they exceed reportable quantities under CERCLA. EPCRA has an exemption where only

classified “large” CAFOs (over 700 mature dairy cattle or over 1000 cattle or cow/calf pairs)

are required to report over 100 lbs in emissions of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide within a 24-

hour period (Hribar, 2010).

43

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA regulates six “criteria” pollutants through the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards: sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen

dioxide, lead, and particulate pollution PM2.5 and PM10 (U.S. EPA, 2016b). The Clean Air Act

does not exempt the farm industry from compliance; however, lack of comprehensive data

collection, monitoring, and inconsistent enforcement renders the CAA largely toothless

when it comes to regulating harmful air emissions from CAFOs (Hoover, 2013). Furthermore,

federal regulations regarding air quality focus on urban areas, and thus air-monitoring

programs in rural areas - where CAFOs typically exist - are rare (Hayes, 2015).

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide

are also emitted through livestock operations and contribute significantly to climate change.

The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) requires individual facilities to report

emissions equal to or larger than 25,000 metric tons CO2 equivalent across sectors to provide

bottom-up data to complement the comprehensive top-down U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse

Gas Emissions and Sinks (U.S. EPA, n.d.c).

GHGRP only covers emissions from manure management systems, however, and all other

agricultural sources of emissions, such as enteric fermentation, are exempted due to the

uncertainty and difficulty of such calculations under “currently available practical methods”

(U.S. EPA, 2009). According to the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks

Report, manure management accounted for 25.7% of methane CO2e emissions from

agriculture in 2014 and a mere 5.2% of nitrous oxide CO2e emissions; taken together, manure

management only contributes 13.7% of total agricultural methane and nitrous oxide

emissions, identified by the Report as the two primary agricultural GHG emissions (U.S. EPA,

2016c). In other words, 86% of the GHG emissions from agriculture in 2014 were not assessed

at the farm-level. Greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. agriculture sector are increasing,

in part due a 54% growth in methane and nitrous oxide emissions from liquid manure

management systems (U.S. EPA, n.d.a). There are a number of opportunities for reduction

of agricultural sector emissions:

● adjusting land management and fertilization application;

● adjusting livestock feeding practices to reduce methane emissions;

● managing manure as a solid rather than liquid-based system; or

● capturing and storing methane emissions as a substitute for fossil fuels.

(U.S. EPA, n.d.a).

44

Table 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Agricultural Sector in 2014

Gas/Source 2014 GHG Emissions

(MMT CO2 Eq.)

CH4 238.0

Enteric Fermentation 164.3

Manure Management 61.2

Rice Cultivation 12.2

Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 0.3

N2O 336.1

Agricultural Soil Management 318.5

Manure Management 17.5

Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 0.1

TOTAL 574.1

Source: EPA, Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014

However, although voluntary GHG-reduction programs exist, none of the current regulatory

controls limit or carry a penalty for emitting GHG emissions that occur naturally with raising

livestock (Massey, 2014).

Economic Policy

Grazing Rights. The Bureau of Land Management currently administers nearly 18,000

permits and over 21,000 allotments for livestock grazing on over 60% of public lands -- 155

million out of 245 million acres (U.S. DOI BLM, n.d.). The U.S. Forest Service administers an

additional 95 million acres as part of the federal grazing program; altogether, the program

provides ranches with 15 million “animal unit months” (AUMs) from public forage resources,

meaning the lands can feed 15 million cow-calf pairs each month (Regan, 2016). Intended

as a program to promote the healthy and environmental productivity of these lands, grazing

rights represent a significant subsidy that lowers the cost of beef production, as ranchers

pay as little as one-tenth for grazing rights compared to the cost of grazing cattle on private

land (Hayes, 2015). An analysis conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity found that

taxpayers missed out on $125 million from grazing subsidies in 2014 alone, due to the

lowered rate charged for grazing on public lands compared to private lands (Glaser, 2015).

In 2016, the grazing fee per AUM was increased to $2.11, from the fee of $1.35/AUM charged

in 2014, but this still represents only 10% of the average fee charged for irrigated private

grazing lands in the western U.S. (U.S. DOI BLM, n.d.; Glaser, 2015).

45

The indirect costs of public lands grazing incurred by the taxpayer are also not accounted

for in the grazing fees. Between 2000 and 2016, the USDA Wildlife Services has killed over

2 million mammals, particularly predators like wolves and coyotes, in order to protect

ranchers who graze livestock on public lands (Bale, 2016). Indirect costs also include the

budget allotments of agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services that go toward

assessing the impact of grazing on endangered species and developing recovery plans for

their protection (Glaser, 2015).

The Farm Bill. Updated periodically, the Agricultural Adjustment Act (colloquially known

as the “Farm Bill”) has supported the overproduction of staple “commodity” crops, such as

corn, rice, wheat, and soybeans, since the Great Depression (Farm Policy Facts, n.d.). Begun

as a program to ensure adequate food supply, much of these covered commodity crops are

not eaten directly by humans but rather go toward livestock feed or biofuel production --

roughly 36% of U.S.-produced corn is fed to livestock and 40% is used for ethanol (Foley,

2013). Crop insurance also promotes and protects commodity crop production, with the 2014

Farm Bill allocating $90B for crop insurance over a ten-year period through direct payments

to farms and a diversity of “risk management options” (Plumer, 2014). Notably for the health

of Americans, “specialty crops,” such as fruit and vegetables, are historically not eligible

for Farm Bill subsidies or crop insurance, though the 2014 Farm Bill introduces “whole farm”

protection that would extend to speciality crops grown on a farm that sells 2 to 5 commodity

crops (PCRM, n.d.). The Food Stamp program, addressed in the following Chapter, has

become the dominant area of spending since it was included in the Farm Bill in the 1970’s

(Heiligenstein, 2014). In the 2014 iteration of the Farm Bill, food stamps and nutritional

assistance represent $756 billion in spending -- nearly 80% of the overall costs for the bill -

- while crop insurance and commodity programs represent 14% of the Farm Bill’s costs

(Plumer, 2014).

Conservation programs are to receive $56B over the next decade, representing 6% of the

2014 Farm Bill (Plumer, 2014). These programs aim to encourage farmers and forestland

owners with incentives to promote biodiversity, habitat protection, and other ecological

benefits such as reduced erosion (Culliney, n.d.). Previously, this encouragement focused

on “practice-based” incentives, rewarding farmers for following a set of prescriptive

practices believed to improve ecological conditions. While 6% is a smaller budgetary portion

than in previous Farm Bills, the 2014 iteration represents an important and potentially

positive shift from “practice-based” to “outcome-based” incentives that are intended to

improve accountability (Culliney, n.d.). Thus, farmers must demonstrate indicators of

46

environmental improvement in order to receive compensation, such as ecological integrity

assessments or evidence of habitats representing biodiversity (Culliney, n.d.).

Authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill, the Livestock Indemnity Program insures livestock

producers for animal deaths due to adverse weather at 75% of the livestock’s market value

(USDA FSA, 2014). The program also entitles ranchers to full compensation for the value of

the dead animal if, despite the USDA Wildlife Services’ best efforts, livestock are killed by

a predator. Funded as part of a federal program, these payments to ranchers reduce the

risk and cost of livestock production at taxpayer expense.

Health and Social Policy

Taken together, the price, availability, convenience, and desirability of food can be seen as

the “food environment” within which consumers make decisions on what to eat and what

not to eat (Herforth, 2015). The U.S. food supply closely mirrors food consumption --

“broadly, what is available is what is consumed,” and so the Farm Bill has strong implications

for the nutritional composition of the U.S. diet (Herforth, 2015). However, the federal

government also issues dietary guidelines to advise healthy consumptive habits and,

historically, macronutrient recommendations under the USDA Food Guide have not aligned

with U.S. food production and supply, as can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3. USDA Macronutrient Recommendations Compared to Per Capita Production

Macronutrient USDA Food Guide, 2005* U.S. Food Supply, 2005**

Fiber (grams) 31 24

Protein (grams) 91 109

Fat (grams) 65 177

Saturated fatty acids (g) 17 53

Monosaturated fatty acids (g) 24 77

Polysaturated fatty acids (g) 20 39

Cholesterol (mg) 230 410

*for females 19-30 years of age, based on 2000 kcal (HHS and USDA, DGAC Report, 2005) **based on 3900 kcal of food energy supplied (USDA CNPP, 2011)

Dietary Guidelines. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) are published every 5

years jointly by the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services

(HHS). The DGAs are mandated by the 1990 National Nutrition Monitoring and Related

Research Act, which requires the two departments to provide “nutritional and dietary

information and guidelines” (USDA Blog, 2015). The dietary guidelines are supposed to be

47

guided backed by sound nutritional and medicinal science, and the Act requires the creation

of an advisory committee to provide scientific recommendations (HHS and USDA, 2015b). In

addition to providing overall dietary recommendations for healthy American diets, the DGAs

are instrumental in informing supplemental nutritional policy for women, infants and

children (WIC), a program upon which over 8M Americans rely, and determine what is served

to over 31M children in the National School Lunch Program (Merrigan et al., 2015).

“... a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods... and lower in animal-

based foods is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact (GHG emissions and energy, land, and water use) than is the current average

U.S. diet.” -DGAC Report, 2015

In 2015, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) recommended including

environmental sustainability when developing the guidelines. The DGAC Report notes the

large environmental impact of the average U.S. diet compared to Mediterranean or

vegetarian diet patterns, attributed to the high intake of “animal-based foods” (HHS and

USDA, 2015b). The environmental sustainability of diets affects long-term human health and

food security, and the 1990 DGA statute says nothing to prevent inclusion of sustainability

in the scientific evaluation informing dietary guidance. Merrigan, et al. (2015) present the

argument that incorporation of sustainability into DGAs would “sanction and elevate

discussion of sustainable diets” and “signal to consumers that such foods are preferred.”

Such arguments, Merrigan, et al. argue, may resonate with motivations of consumers already

promoting sustainably harvested seafood and sales of local and organic products (Merrigan

et al., 2015).

“Gradually shifting human diet toward much heavier reliance on plants…

must therefore be viewed as a central element in broader national and global food policies that emphasize renewed commitment to minimizing food disparities, hunger,

and climate change.” -Eshel et al., 2010

In considering the environmental sustainability of U.S. diets, the DGAC Report identified

beef as “the single food with the greatest projected impact on the environment” with

cheese and milk also estimated to have a high impact (HHS and USDA, 2015b). Predictably,

the DGAC’s Report and the proposition to consider the environmental and sustainability

impact of the U.S. diet roused fierce opposition from the meat industry (Sharma, 2015). A

representative of North American Meat Institute told NPR that sustainability was “clearly

out of scope” for the dietary guidelines, justifying the “larger carbon footprint” by the fact

that a pound of meat delivers more nutrition than a pound of apples (Aubrey, 2015). In

48

response to “concern” from Congress to the DGA’s inclusion of environmental and

agricultural factors, the finalized DGA’s nixed any mention of environmental sustainability,

indicating that it is not part of the “scope of the mandate” and that the DGA’s are not

“appropriate vehicle” for a conversation on sustainability (Aubrey, 2015; Charles, 2014).

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines moved away from recommending daily amounts of

macronutrient intake and instead recommend a Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern, consisting

of the following for an 1800-calorie diet:

● vegetables: 2.5 cup-equivalent;

● fruits: 1.5 cup-equivalent;

● grains: 6 oz.-equivalent;

● dairy: 3 cup-equivalent;

● protein foods: 5 oz.-equivalent; and

● oils: 24g

(HHS and USDA, 2015a).

Within protein foods, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines recommends 23 ounces per week of meats,

poultry and eggs, and advises that meats and poultry should be “lean or low-fat” (Id.).

According to the USDA, the average U.S. diet falls short of 2015-2020 guidelines for

vegetables, dairy and fruit, and exceeds recommended levels of grains and meat, eggs, and

nuts (USDA ERS, 2016b).

A look at the various policies encouraging and subsidizing both grain and meat production

leads one to question the obvious disparity between federal diet guidelines and federal food

production policy - and to wonder whether these policies are intended to benefit the general

public or large meat-producing corporations.

“Yesterday’s cow poop was different.

When you cram tens of thousands of cows together, as some CAFOs do, germs thrive.” -Hayes, 2015

49

Figure 13. U.S. diet compared to 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines recommendations, 1970 and 2013.

Regulation of Antibiotics. As discussed in Chapter 2, to capitalize on economies of

scale, it is profitable to crowd cattle into facilities, which causes physical distress and

disease among livestock. The vast majority of antibiotics sold in the U.S. are given to

livestock to promote growth and increase the overall survival rate and yield of animal

production. However, we have demonstrated that this widespread antibiotic in livestock

production contributes significantly to the spread of antibiotic resistance and presents

unacceptable risk to public health in the U.S. Here, we will outline the regulatory practices

governing the use of antibiotics.

The use of antibiotics to accelerate livestock growth was first discovered in the U.S. in the

1950’s, and the practice met with activist lobbying - and concern from the scientific

community - on the grounds of bacterial resistance as early as the 1970’s (Ogle, 2013).

Industry push-back has similarly impressive roots, dating back to 1977 when a

Representative from Missouri threatened to slash the FDA’s budget if a ban on penicillin use

in livestock was implemented (Nordrum and Whitman, 2015). Since then, the use of

antibiotics in U.S. in livestock production has experienced increasing sales and heightened

public scrutiny. The practice has come under fire from consumer advocacy groups, faced

lawsuits from environmental law groups such as the NRDC, and received international

attention from health organization. In 2013, the FDA introduced a new policy to reduce the

indiscriminate use of antibiotics in livestock production to promote growth (Tavernise,

50

2013). However, this policy came in the form of voluntary guidelines for drug manufacturers

to phase out the use of antibiotics for growth promotion, and sales of antibiotics increased

through 2014 (Polansek, 2015). In a step in the right direction, the FDA updated its policies

in 2015 to officially ban the use of any drugs specifically for growth-promotion and require

farmers to obtain feed with antibiotics from veterinarians rather than purchasing it over-

the-counter (Palmer, 2015). Time - and future sales data - will tell whether the new policy

significantly impacts antibiotic use in livestock.

51

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION & AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY

America must reduce beef consumption. Beef production has a uniquely devastating impact

on the environment, including intensive greenhouse gas contributions, air and water

pollution, land degradation, species loss, and extensive fossil fuel use. Beef as a component

of the American diet has negative impacts on public health and is linked to multiple chronic

diseases. Despite all of these negative externalities associated with beef, the industry

enjoys governmental subsidization for production, exemptions to environmental statutes,

and a lack of pressure to inform the public of the health and safety of the product itself.

The environmental externalities and costs associated with production of beef are giant in

size as compared to other food products, including other non-ruminant livestock. These

externalities are not properly accounted for in the socioeconomic system, contributing to

long-lasting effects for future generations who will live with the consequences of this

population’s excessive beef consumption. Government should stop heavily and biasedly

subsidizing beef in the American food system so that the true price of beef is reflected in

the marketplace. Environmental statutes should not allow for beef or agricultural

exemptions when protecting U.S. waters or air quality. Climate policies should discern the

specific and intensive GHG impact of beef and respond with appropriate public policy.

Lastly, nutritional guidance in the U.S. should incorporate sustainability when making

dietary recommendations.

Supply-side mitigation of beef consumption represents a crucial component to addressing

health, environmental and economic imbalances in the U.S. The change can begin with

something as simple as replacing a hamburger with a turkey or veggie burger.

Areas of Opportunity. Beyond recommending that the general public be motivated

and empowered to reduce their beef consumption through simple substitutions in their

dietary choices, the authors have a sample of general recommendations and areas of focus

for policy makers to consider.

For raising public awareness, a first step is to have environmental sustainability incorporated

into the Dietary Guidelines. Environmentally conscious and health-based recommendations

would decrease intake of beef and encourage consumption of diets lower in animal-based

foods. In addition, public health impacts of beef production and consumption need be better

publicized and addressed, especially the overuse of antibiotics in the industry.

52

One of the important areas for policy revision include actions that result in a long-term

incremental increase in the cost of beef to internalize externalities. This can be done in

various ways, from evaluating the true cost of grazing rights on public land, lowering

subsidies for commodity grain crops, to removing environmental federal law exemptions.

To address beef’s impact on climate, it is imperative that policies be put in place to reduce

the industry’s carbon footprint. Some possible policy initiatives that could be considered

include industry-wide GHG accounting, CO2e caps for CAFO manure management, an

agricultural carbon tax, or a market-based system (such as cap and trade) for carbon

emissions from industry sources.

We also recommend that the USDA consider developing a publicly available information

system or labeling system that ranks GHG emissions for various livestock products.

The list of possibilities to address environmental and public health improvements is one

that would require substantially more analysis than what is suggested above. These

authors hope to see public policy students, science and policy experts, and eminent

figures add to this list, generate solutions and work to implement them.

Ultimately, without hesitation, we recommend

that readers engage with these issues, share this analysis with

others, and choose to HOLD THE BEEF in their daily lives.

53

References

Adjemian, M. K. et al. (2016). Thinning markets in U.S. agriculture: What are the implications for producers and processors? Economic Information Bulletin No. 148. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/2030725/eib148.pdf

Angelo, M. J. (2010). Corn, carbon and conservation: Rethinking U.S. agricultural policy in a changing global environment. George Mason Law Review 17(3), pp. 593-660.

Arrow, K. et al. (1995). Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268, pp. 520-521.

Aubrey, A. (2015, Oct. 6). New Dietary Guidelines Will Not Include Sustainability Goal. NPR, The Salt. Retrieved from www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/06/446369955/new-dietary-guidelines-will-not-include-sustainability-goal.

Bale, R. (2016, Feb. 12). This Government Program’s Job Is to Kill Wildlife. National Geographic. Retrieved from news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160212-Wildlife-Services-predator-control-livestock-trapping-hunting.

Barrett, R., & Armelagos, G. J. (2013). An unnatural history of emerging infections. Oxford University Press.

Beauchemin, K., Henry Janzen, H., Little, S., McAllister, T., & McGinn, S. (2010). Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: A case study. Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 371-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.008

Bergstrom, B. J., Arias, L. C., Davidson, A. D., Ferguson, A. W., Randa, L. A., & Sheffield, S. R. (2014). License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function. Conservation Letters, 7(2), 131-142.

Bittman, M. (2008). Mark Bittman: What’s wrong with what we eat? [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat?language=en

Bovalino, S., Charleson, G., & Szoeke, C. (2015). The impact of red and processed meat consumption on cardiovascular disease risk in women. Nutrition.

Braxton Little, J. (2009). The Ogallala Aquifer: Saving a Vital U.S. Water Source. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ogallala-aquifer/

Cattlemen’s Beef Board and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (2009). Cattle Industry: Who We Are | fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.explorebeef.org/cmdocs/explorebeef/factsheet_cattleindustrywhoweare.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2013). Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf

54

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2014). National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System for Enteric Bacteria (NARMS). Retrieved March 30, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2015). Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), or Mad Cow Disease. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/prions/bse/about.html

Charles, D. (2014, Dec. 15). Congress To Nutritionists: Don’t Talk About The Environment. NPR, The Salt. Retrieved from www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/15/370427441/congress-to-nutritionists-dont-talk-about-the-environment

Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’ 80 FR 37053 (June 29, 2015, effective August 28, 2015) (to be codified at 33 C.F.R. pt. 328 and 40 C.F.R. pts. 110, 112, 116, et al.)

Costanza et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, pp. 253-260. Retrieved from http://www.esd.ornl.gov/benefits_conference/nature_paper.pdf

Culliney, S. and Vickerman, S. (n.d.) Getting What We Pay for: Payments for Wildlife and Biodiversity Outcomes Under Farm Bill Programs. Retrieved from www.pinchot.org/doc/511.

Dal Bó, E. (2006). Regulatory capture: A review. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22(2), 203-225.

De Groot, R., Wilson, M., Boumans, R. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41, pp. 393-408.

Domingo, J. L., & Nadal, M. (2016). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat: What about environmental contaminants?. Environmental research, 145, 109-115.

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. Cattle and Beef: Statistics and information. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx

Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). Farm subsidy primer. In the Environmental Working Group website. Retrieved from https://farm.ewg.org/subsidyprimer.php

Eshel, G. (2016). Why Hold the Beef. Presentation, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory - Columbia University.

Eshel, G., & Martin, P. A. (2006). Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth interactions, 10(9), 1-17.

Eshel, G., Martin, P. A., & Bowen, E. E. (2010). Land use and reactive nitrogen discharge: Effects of dietary choices. Earth Interactions, 14(21), 1-15.

Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T., & Milo, R. (2014). Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 111(33), 11996-12001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402183111

55

Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T., & Milo, R. (2015). Partitioning United States' feed consumption among livestock categories for improved environmental cost assessments. The Journal of Agricultural Science,153(03), 432-445.

Farm Policy Facts. (n.d.). A Short History and Summary of the Farm Bill. Retrieved from www.farmpolicyfacts.org/farm-policy-history.

Faunt, C.C., ed. (2009). Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1766, 225 p.

Feskens, E. J., Sluik, D., & van Woudenbergh, G. J. (2013). Meat consumption, diabetes, and its complications. Current diabetes reports,13(2), 298-306.

Foley, J. (2013, Mar. 5). It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System. Scientific American. Retrieved from www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO UN]. (2012). Livestock and Landscapes.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations [FAO UN]. (2013). Statistical Yearbook 2013: World Food and Agriculture. FAO Food Agric. Organization UN Rome Italy.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations [FAO UN]. (2015). Statistical Pocketbook 2015 FAO Food Agric. Organization UN Rome Italy.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO UN]. (2016). AQUASTAT website.

FRONTLINE, PBS. (2009). Chicken Waste and Water Pollution (Excerpt from Poisoned Waters). Retrieved from www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/envh10.sci.life.eco.chickenwaste/chicken-waste-and-water-pollution/

Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

Glaser, C., Romaniello, C. and Moskowitz, K. (2015, Jan.). Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands. The Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved from www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/pdfs/CostsAndConsequences_01-2015.pdf.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P., Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69, pp. 1209-1218.

Goodwin, B. K. and Smith, V. H. (2013). What harm is done by subsidizing crop insurance? American Journal of Agricultural economics 95(2), pp. 489-497.

Gross M. (2013). Antibiotics in crisis. Current Biology 23(24). Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0960982213015121/1-s2.0-S0960982213015121-main.pdf?_tid=3628dde8-e3dd-11e5-80a3-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1457297674_cc5f17636675dd0713bef51e484bc799

56

Hanlon, J. (n.d.). Memorandum - Permitting for Environmental Results: Permit Issuance and Priority Permits. Retrieved www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/prioritization_memo3-5-04.pdf.

Harvey, A. and Wise, T. A. (2009). Sweetening the pot: Implicit Subsidies to corn sweeteners and the U.S. obesity epidemic. Policy Brief No. 09-01. Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University. Retrieved from http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/PB09-01SweeteningPotFeb09.pdf

Haspel, T. (2015, October 27). The decline of the (red) meat industry - in one chart. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/red-meat-consumption-decline/

Hayenga M., Schroeder T. and Lawrence J. (2001). Churning out the links: Vertical Integration in the Beef and Pork Industries. Choices 16(4). Retrieved from http://farmdoc.illinois.edu/policy/choices/20024/2002-4-03.pdf

Hayes, D. and Hayes, G. (2015). Cowed: The Hidden Impact of 93 Million Cows on America’s Health, Economy, Politics, Culture, and Environment. (W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.: New York).

Heiligenstein, M. (2014, Apr. 17). A Brief History of the Farm Bill. The Saturday Evening Post. Retrieved from www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/04/17/culture/politics/a-brief-history-of-the-farm-bill.html.

Heller, M. C., & Keoleian, G. A. (2000). Life cycle-based sustainability indicators for assessment of the US food system (Vol. 4). Ann Arbor: Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan.

Herforth, A. and Ahmed, S. (2015). The food environment, its effects and potential for measurement within agriculture-nutrition interventions. Food Security 7(3): 505-520. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0455-8.

Hoover, J. (2013). Can’t You Smell That Small? Clean Air Act Fixes for Factory Farm Air Pollution. Stanford Journal of Animal Law & Policy Vol. 6. Retrieved from journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/print/issues/hoover_1.pdf.

Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental health perspectives, 110(5), 445.

Hribar, C. (2010). Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation and Their Impact on Communities. National Association of Local Boards of Health. Ed. Mark Schultz. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf.

Human Rights Watch. (2000). Fingers to the bone: United States failure to protect farm workers. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2000/06/02/fingers-bone/united-states-failure-protect-child-farmworkers

IARC. (2015). Monographs Evaluate Consumption of Red Meat and Processed Meat. Press Release No. 240.

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon [Interagency Working Group]. (2013). Technical support document: Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory

57

impact analysis under Executive Order 12866. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf

Kaluza, J., Åkesson, A., & Wolk, A. (2014). Processed and unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of heart failure prospective study of men.Circulation: Heart Failure, 7(4), 552-557.

Kaluza, J., Wolk, A., & Larsson, S. (2012). Red Meat Consumption and Risk of Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. Stroke, 43(10), 2556-2560.

Kansas Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Kansas Agriculture. Retrieved from http://agriculture.ks.gov/about-ksda/kansas-agriculture

Kolstad, C. D. (2011). Environmental Economics (Second ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lusk, J. L. (2016). Distributional effects of crop insurance subsidies. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

Machovina, B., & Feeley, K. J. (2014a). Taking a bite out of biodiversity. Science, 343(6173), 838-838.

Machovina, B., & Feeley, K. J. (2014b). Livestock: limit red meat consumption. Nature, 508(7495), 186-186.

Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of the Total Environment, 536, 419-431.

Massey, R. McClure, H. (2014). Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. University of Missouri Extension. Retrieved from extension.missouri.edu/p/G310.

Mathews, K. and Haley, M. (2016). Livestock, dairy and poultry outlook no. LDP-M-260. USDA Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldpm-livestock,-dairy,-and-poultry-outlook/ldp-m-260.aspx

McLoud, P., Gronwald, R., & Kuykendall, H. (2007). Precision Agriculture: NRCS Support for Emerging Technologies. Greensboro, North Carolina: National Resources Conservation Service, USDA. Retrieved from www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1043474.pdf

McAfee, A. J., McSorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J. M., Bonham, M. P., & Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat science, 84(1), 1-13.

Merrigan, K., Griffin, T., Wilde, P., Robien, K., Goldberg, J., and W. Dietz. (2015, Oct.). Designing a sustainable diet. Science Vol 350 Issue 6257, pp 165-166, doi: 10.1126.science.aab2031.

Micha, R., Michas, G., & Mozaffarian, D. (2012). Unprocessed red and processed meats and risk of coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes–an updated review of the evidence. Current atherosclerosis reports, 14(6), 515-524.

Moran, T., Choy, J. and Sanchez, C. (2014). The hidden costs of groundwater overdraft. Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Bill Lane Center for the American

58

West. Retrieved from http://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/groundwater/overdraft/#chapter-6

National Cancer Institute. (2015). Chemicals in Meat Cooked at High Temperatures and Cancer Risk. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet

National Corn Growers Association. (2008). Corn and livestock: A synergistic relationship. Retrieved from http://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/cornandlivestock.pdf

Natural Resource Defense Council [NRDC]. (2016). Food, Farm Animals, and Drugs. Retrieved March 28th, 2016, from http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-antibiotics.asp.

Nickerson, C., Ebel, R., Borchers, A., & Carriazo, F. (2011). Major uses of land in the United States, 2007. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Niman, N. H. (2014). Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Nordrum, A and Whitman, E. (2015, Apr. 29). Antibiotic Resistance: How Livestock Lobbyists and Drug Companies Hinder the US Fight Against Superbugs. International Business Times. Retrieved from www.ibtimes.com/antibiotic-resistance-how-livestock-lobbyists-drug-companies-hinder-us-fight-against-1901499

Obenchain, J., & Spark, A. (2016). Food policy: Looking forward from the past. New York: CRC Press.

Ogburn, S. (2011). Cattlemen struggle against giant meatpackers and economic squeezes. High Country News. Retrieved from https://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-giant-meatpackers-and-economic-squeezes

Ogle, M. (2013, Sept. 3). Riots, Rage, and Resistance: A Brief History of How Antibiotics Arrived on the Farm. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/riots-rage-and-resistance-a-brief-history-of-how-antibiotics-arrived-on-the-farm/

Palmer, K. (2015, June 16). The FDA’s Livestock Antibiotic Policies Still Aren’t Enough. Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/2015/06/fdas-livestock-antibiotic-policies-still-arent-enough.

Pelletier, N. and Tyedmers, P. (2010). Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000-2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 107(43), pp. 18371-18374. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18371.full.pdf

Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Environmental Impact of Industrial Farm Animal Production. Washington D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/industrial_agriculture/pcifapenvimpactpdf.pdf

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine [PCRM]. (n.d.). Government Support for Unhealthy Foods. Retrieved from www.pcrm.org/health/reports/agriculture-and-health-policies-unhealthful-foods.

Pimentel, D. and Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78, pp. 660-663.

59

Pimentel, D., Harvey C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K., Kurz, D., M. McNair, Crist, S., Shpritz, L., Fitton, L., Saffouri, R., & Blair, R. (1995). Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267, pp. 1117-1123.

Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (1996a). Energy Use in Fruit, Vegetable, and Forage Production. Food, Energy, and Society.

Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (1996b). Food processing, packaging, and preparation. Food, Energy, and Society, ed. D. Pimentel, and M. Pimentel, revised edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO, 186-201.

Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2008). Food, energy, and society. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Plumer, B. (2014). The $956 billion farm bill, in one graph. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart.

Polansek, T. (2015, Dec. 11). Antibiotic Use in Food Animals Continues to Rise. Scientific American. Retrieved from www.scientificamerican.com/article/antibiotic-use-in-food-animals-continues-to-rise.

Rabotyagov, S., Kling, S., Gassman, P., Rabalais, N., Turner, R. (2014). The economics of dead zones: Causes, impacts, policy challenges, and a model of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 8(1), pp. 58-79.

Rasby, R. (2013). Determining How Much Forage a Beef Cow Consumes Each Day. UNL Beef. Retrieved from http://beef.unl.edu/cattleproduction/forageconsumed-day

Regan, S. (2016). Managing Conflict Over US Federal Rangelands. Retrieved from www.perc.org/articles/managing-conflicts-over-rangelands_fraser_ranching-realities#sthash.yAmTDbRd.dpuf.

Reganold, J. P., Jackson-Smith, D., Batie, S., Harwood, R., Kornegay, J., Bucks, D., Flora, B., Hanson, J., Jury, W., Meyer, D., Shumacher Jr., A., Sehmsdorf, H., Shennan, C., Thrupp, L., Willis, P. (2011). Transforming U.S. agriculture. Science 332. Retrieved from http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2011/05/9dd134b3-f7a3-436a-b83d-cfc982f9beaa.pdf

Reijnders, L., & Soret, S. (2003). Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 664S-668S.

Ribaudo, M., Livingston, M., & Williamson, J. (2012). Nitrogen Management on U.S. Corn Acres, 2001-10. USDA Economic Research Service.

Rosegrant, M., Cai, X., Cline, S., & Nakagawa, N. (2002). The Role of Rainfed Agriculture in the Future of Global Food Production. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/16053/1/ep020090.pdf

Russell, J. B., & Rychlik, J. L. (2001). Factors That Alter Rumen Microbial Ecology. Science, 292, 1119-1122.

Saitone, T. and Sexton, R. (2012). Market Structure and competition in the US Food Industries: Implications for the 2012 Farm Bill. American Boondoggle: Fixing the 2012

60

Farm Bill. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/-market-structure-and-competition-in-the-us-food-industries_102234192168.pdf

Sharma, S. (2015, Feb. 23). Big Meat Lobby to Attach New Dietary Guidelines. Institute For Agriculture & Trade Policy. Retrieved from www.iatp.org/blog/201502/big-meat-lobby-to-attack-new-dietary-guidelines.

Smil, V. (2013). Should we eat meat? Evolution and consequences of modern carnivory. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sneeringer, S., MacDonald, J., Key, N., McBride, M., and Mathews, K. (2015). Economics of Antibiotic Use in US. Livestock Production. Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov/media/1950577/err200.pdf.

Solomon, G. and Motts, M. (1998). Trouble on the farm: Growing up with pesticides in agricultural communities. NRDC. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/farm/farminx.asp

Song, Y., Manson, J. E., Buring, J. E., & Liu, S. (2004). A Prospective Study of Red Meat Consumption and Type 2 Diabetes in Middle-Aged and Elderly Women The Women’s Health Study. Diabetes care, 27(9), 2108-2115.

Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow— Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.

Steward, D. R. et al. (2013). Tapping unsustainable groundwater stores for agricultural production in the High Plains Aquifer of Kansas, projections to 2110. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/110/37/E3477.full.pdf

Stiglitz, J. E. (2013, November 16). The insanity of our food policy. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/the-insanity-of-our-food-policy/

Sumner, D. A. (2014). American farms keep growing: Farm, productivity and policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(1), pp. 147-166. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43193720.pdf

Tavernise, S. (2012, Sept. 3). Farm Use of Antibiotics Defies Scrutiny. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-antibiotics-in-animals-raised-for-food-defies-scrutiny.html?_r=0.

Tavernise, S. (2013, Dec. 11). F.D.A. Restricts Antibiotic Use for Livestock. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/health/fda-to-phase-out-use-of-some-antibiotics-in-animals-raised-for-meat.html.

World Bank. (2014). Data webpage. GDP at market prices (current US$). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D'Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., & Swackhamer, D. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science, 292(5515), 281-284.

61

U.S. Department of Agriculture Blog. (2015, Oct. 6). 2015 Dietary Guidelines: Giving You the Tools You Need to Make Healthy Choices. Posted by Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Burwell. Retrieved from blogs.usda.gov/2015/10/06/2015-dietary-guidelines-giving-you-the-tools-you-need-to-make-healthy-choices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion [USDA CNPP]. (2011). Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply: Developments Between 2000-2006. Retrieved from www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/nutrient_content_of_the_us_food_supply/Final_FoodSupplyReport_2006.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. (2010). Most U.S. corn acres at risk of nitrogen losses to the environment. Ers.usda.gov. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=48584

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. (2012). Cattle & Feed. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/background.aspx

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. (2015a). Land Use, Land Value & Tenure: Overview, Major Land Uses. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses.aspx

U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. (2015b). World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. USDA Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx

U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic and Research Service [USDA ERS]. (2016a). Buyer Concentration grows in US cattle markets. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=56991

U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. (2016b). U.S. diets are still out of balance with Federal recommendations. Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=56400.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. (2016c). Crops. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/.aspx

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency [USDA FSA]. (2014). 2014 Farm Bill Fact Sheet: Livestock Indemnity Program. Retrieved from www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/lip_long_fact_sht_2014.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA NASS]. (2009). “2007 Census of Agriculture”. Vol. 1: Part 51, Chapter 1, AC-07-A-51, United States Summary and State Data. Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA NASS]. (2013). “Cattle on Feed.” Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/ viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1020

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA NASS]. (2014a). “2012 Census of Agriculture”. Vol. 1: Part 51, Chapter 1, AC-12-A-51, United States Summary and State Data. Retrieved from

62

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics [USDA NASS]. (2014b). Corn for Grain 2014 by County for Selected States. Retrieved from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr-pr.phpUnited States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA NASS]. (2016). Cattle. Retrieved from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2016/01_29_2016.php

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS] (2010). 2007 national resources inventory: Soil erosion on cropland. Retrieved from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_012269.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. (n.d.). Animal Feeding Operations. Retrieved from www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/livestock/afo.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. (2016). Mississippi River Drainage Basin. Retrieved from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=nrcsdev11_023896

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2015). Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council proposes $183 million to help restore gulf coast [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2015/08/gulf-coast-ecosystem-restoration-council-proposes-183-million-help

U.S. Department of Energy [US DOE]. (2004). Annual energy review 2003. (Rep. DOE/EIA-0384), Energy Information Administration.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (HHS and USDA, 2015a). Appendix 3. USDA Food Patterns: Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern. 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Retrieved from health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-3.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (HHS and USDA, 2015b). Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Retrieved from health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/PDFs/Scientific-Report-of-the-2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-Committee.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [U.S. DOI BLM]. (n.d.) Fact Sheet on the BLM’s Management of Livestock Grazing. Last updated Feb. 3, 2016, retrieved from www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics [USDL]. (n.d.) Average retail food and energy prices, U.S. city average and Midwest region. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/AverageRetailFoodAndEnergyPrices_USandMidwest_Table.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2009). CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms: Final Rule. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/cafo_rule_fact_sheet.pdf.

63

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2015a). Fact Sheet - CAFO NPDES Permit - General Overview of Federal Regulations. Retrieved from www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/cafo/NPDESPartI.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2015b). Factsheet: The Clean Water Rule for Agriculture. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/fact_sheet_agriculture_final.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015c). Nonpoint source: Agriculture. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/nonpoint-source-agriculture.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2016a). About NPDES. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/npdes/about-npdes.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2016b). Criteria Air Pollutants NAAQS Table. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2016c). Inventory of the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2014, Chapter 5: Agriculture. Retrieved from www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016-Chapter-5-Agriculture.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (n.d.a). Agriculture Sector Emissions. Last updated Feb. 23, 2016, retrieved from www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agriculture.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (n.d.b). GHG Emissions by Industry - GHGRP vs. U.S. GHG Inventory. Retrieved from www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/Inventory-GHGRP-Differences.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (n.d.c). Overview of greenhouse gases. Washington D.C.

U.S. Executive Office of the President [U.S. EPA]. Memorandum for executive departments and agencies: Incorporating ecosystem services into Federal decision making. Washington D.C., October 2015 (M-16-01). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-01.pdf

U.S. Food and Drug Administration [U.S. FDA]. 2015. Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals (Rep.). Retrieved March 30, 2016, from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/AnimalDrugUserFeeActADUFA/UCM440584.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. (n.d.). California’s Central Valley: Regional characteristics. Retrieved from http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central-valley.html

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. (2016). Irrigation Water Use, the USGS Water Science School. . Water.usgs.gov. Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuir.html

Union of Concerned Scientists. (n.d.). Prescription for Trouble: Using Antibiotics to Fatten Livestock. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture/prescription-for-trouble.html#.Vvg9YxIrLBI

64

Unruh, B. (2002). Delivered energy consumption projections by industry in the Annual Energy Outlook 2002.

Van Kernebeek, H. R., Oosting, S. J., Van Ittersum, M. K., Bikker, P., & De Boer, I. J. (2015). Saving land to feed a growing population: consequences for consumption of crop and livestock products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1-11.

World Health Organization. (2012, February). Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en/

Yam, P. (2009). Mad cow disease. Scientific American, 301(3), 89-89.