Societal Concerns Raised by CAFOs

William D. Heffernan, Ph.D
Professor of Rural Sociology, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri

CAFOs raise specific environmental concerns about water and air quality, but many of the societal and environmental concerns go far beyond a narrow definition of environmental issues. Most current societal concerns about CAFOs are really issues raised about the food system and its agricultural sector that are increasingly following the industrialization model. Some of the first concerns were reused over a century ago by what has come to be known as the Farmers' Movement. The major change today, however, is that many of the original issues are attracting the attention of persons and groups not involved in farming. In addition, newer issues, especially environmental ones, are attracting the attention of more recent social movements.

Managing manure in harmony with the environment and society is not going to adequately address the concerns about changes in the food system and their impacts. A "simple technological solution" to narrowly defined water and air quality concerns is not going to reduce much of the opposition to CAFOs. My purpose is to raise some of the other societal concerns currently highlighted by CAFOs.

Woven into my comments will also be a critique of the assumption that farmers make the major decisions on their farms. This is one of the major assumptions upon which most of the soil

and water conservation efforts of the past have been based. At one time this assumption was more or less correct for most farmers, but increasingly farmers are being separated from the major decisions on their farms. They are being told this is the way it will be done if you want to have a market for your product. In fact the question that must be increasingly raised is whether the person providing the labor really has title to the product they are producing; such is not the case for contract broiler and hog producers. Thus, the adoption/diffusion model for which rural sociologists become so well known in soil and water conservation arenas and other agriculture circles is less and less relevant.

The food system in the United States resembles an hourglass with many producers and millions of consumers. Between the two are a few firms controlling the processing. These firms are in position to exert a disproportionate level of control in the total food system. Not surprisingly, these firms receive a disproportionate share of the economic benefits from the food system.

Data in the table underscore the dominance of a few food firms in the U.S. food system. Their dominance can be seen in three ways. First, a few companies control the processing segment for each of the major agricultural commodities produced in the Midwest. Data in the table indicate that four firms control 45 percent or more of the markets for poultry meat, beef, pork, lamb, wheat, soybeans, and corn processing. Since the processing segment purchases the agricultural product from the producer segment (farmer), this means there are relatively few markets for each of the major agricultural commodities. This undermines the most basic condition of competition and leaves farmers with few, and in many geographic areas no, alternative markets. A farmer must produce a product meeting the specifications of the processing firms (i.e., genetic material and production practices) or no market is available for their product.

The second point to be made from the table is that a few firms appear repeatedly on the list for several commodities. Firms like ConAgra, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, and IBP (Iowa Beef Processors) appear on the list of several commodities. In many countries of the world the concentration is even greater. Often one hears of the competition between poultry and beef or pork and beef. Some competition does indeed exist, but with the same firms having major control in each commodity, the competition is certainly muted. Furthermore, it suggests farmers cannot avoid some of their problems by producing other major commodities in the region.

The third point to be made, which is only partly obvious from the table, is that a few of these firms exert major control over the food system from "seed to shelf." This vertical integration of the food system that has occurred relatively recently can best be understood by reviewing the annual report of such a firm.

ConAgra, the second largest food firm in the United States and the fourth largest in the world, provides an example of the vertical and horizontal integration processes working simultaneously in the food system. ConAgra is the largest distributor of agricultural chemicals in North America; one of the largest fertilizer producers; and in 1990, it entered the seed business. Most recently it has been involved in joint ventures involving other "food firms" such as Pioneer and DuPont. ConAgra owns more than a hundred elevators (both local and terminal), 2000 railroad cars and 1100 barges. ConAgra and two other firms mill 80 percent of the wheat in North America. ConAgra is also the largest turkey producer and sheep slaughterer, and fourth largest broiler producer. It produces its own poultry feed as well as other livestock feed, and it owns and operates hatcheries. ConAgra hires growers to raise its birds and then processes the birds in its own facilities. This poultry meat can then be purchased as fryers under the name of Country Pride or in further processed foods such as TV and pot pies under the labels of Banquet and Beatrice Food. The grain farmers and poultry growers soon lose their identity and increasingly contribute labor to the system.

The most recent change in food firms involves their global reach. For example, Cargill has operations m 70 countries around the world and ConAgra has operations in 23 countries. These firms and other food firms travel the world to locate areas where they can "source" their products most cheaply. The products are then sold into countries that can afford the food. The global beef sector provides a good example of the emerging global food system.

The trend toward a few global food firms dominating the food system can be seen in many forms. For example, Cargill, Continental, and ADM handle over three-fourths of the grain that is exchanged on the global market. At the other end of the food system, the five largest food/beverage firms in the world are: Nestle, Philip Morris, PepsiCo Inc., ConAgra Inc., and Unilever. The independent farmer is rapidly being lost as the system both expands globally and integrates vertically from the production of genetic material to the delivery of the food in retail stores. Farms and agribusiness firms are rapidly being formally integrated into a food system where they lose their identity.

This changing global food system is not only a concern to farmers. It has implications for many others including agriculturally based rural communities. The ownership and control of the processing sector, and increasingly the production sector, by firms located in places quite distant from the rural community where the production and processing take place has major economic consequences for the local community.

In a family business, such as a family farm, family clothing store or family grocery store, the family subtracts its annual expenses from its income to determine profits that are then allocated among labor, management and capital. For the economic well-being of the family and the rural community, it makes little difference how the profits are allocated among the three costs of labor, management and capital. The local family spends much of the "profit" in the local community. In the past when family businesses were the predominant system in rural communities, researchers talked of multiplier effects of three and four. Newly generated dollars in the agricultural sector would circulate in the community, changing hands from one entrepreneurial family to another three or four times before leaving the rural communities. This greatly enhanced the economic viability of the community.

Large non-local corporations, agricultural firms or retail firms, see labor as just another input cost to be purchased as cheaply as possible. The "profits" then are allocated to return on management and capital and are usually taken immediately from the rural community. They go to the company's headquarters or, if the corporation is a TNC, the "profits" are very likely invested in the food system somewhere else in the world.

Obviously water quality and, to a lesser extent, air pollution are seen as major concerns by environmentalists. Water quality issues can be present with all types of pork production. CAFOs represent special cases because of the potential for enormous damage for a particular environment. Smaller units can also have technological failure or structure failure, but the magnitude of the consequence is vastly different. Thus the task of structural and technological failure may be the same for large and small operations, but the risk of major damage to the environment is quite different.

The problem many environmentalists have with CAFOs focuses on "manure disposal." The orientation of most CAFOs is that of perceiving manure as a liability to be disposed of as cheaply as possible. This often means the firms will do what is necessary to meet resource guidelines. They are willing to let the public sector pick up as many of the environmental costs as possible. Even their terminology reflects this orientation when the problem is stated as waste management. The alternative view is to perceive manure as a valuable resource that needs to be recycled back to the cropland that produced the grain for feed. Smaller, geographically dispersed operations often find it economically profitable to spread manure from their operations on their fields.

CAFOs geographically concentrate animal units which means that the manure must be transported great distances if nutrients are to be recycled to the land where the feed is produced. Many of the CAFOs are constructed in feed grain deficient areas adding to the problem. Some environmentalists would argue the issue is not just a matter of spreading (or dumping) manure over a wide enough area to prevent water pollution. Spreading manure over pasture or hayland based on nutrient uptake of the forage when the need for the increased forage does not exist in the area is not the mm as recycling the nutrients to the cropland. Because many CAFOs use feed transported from great distances, the cost of trucking it back to the cropland would be prohibitive. Some have suggested drying the manure to reduce transportation costs, but drying usually requires fossil fuel and presents other problems. Nutrient recycling is receiving more attention and makes a big step in addressing some of the environmental concerns, but questions will be raised until the nutrients are recycled between animals and cropland.

The millions of dollars of public funds being spent on manure management research upset many because it is seen as a subsidy to CAFOs that are owned by, or closely integrated with many of the TNCs. They ask: "Why does the public pick up the tab for research in this area?" They argue that the cost of the research needs to be assessed against the CAFOs. If these systems are judged to be more economically efficient, let them bear the full cost of research and operating in an environmental benign manner. Their position is that public research should be used to support research for alternative systems that better address the societal and environmental problems. For example, the research focusing on odor tries to reduce the smell, but it does nothing to reduce the loss of nitrogen that is the source of the odor. Environmentalists argue that research should focus on production systems which capture the nitrogen and return it to the cropland rather than replacing it with ever increasing amounts of commercial nitrogen.

Growing concern today is being focused on the use of public research funds that favor the TNCs. This brings many, other than just environmentalists, to question this type of research support. Yet more importantly, most of the current research on waste management is focused on solving environmental symptoms and does not address the real problems. On the other hand, many environmentalists are concerned about the ecological implications as they watch TNCs circumvent government regulations in one country by moving parts of their operations out of that country and into another. An increase in government regulations that increases the cost of producing pork in this country may lead to the increased importation of such food products from countries that are less concerned about their environment. Thus, the environmental community is being cautious in some of their critique but that does not mean their concerns will be dissipated over time.

Today we see the emergence of a growing interest in an alternative food system. Members of this evolving social movement are raising their voices about what agriculture and the entire food system is now and what it should become. They are challenging the global food system on a variety of grounds. They focus their concerns on the environment, social justice, food safety, food quality, the sustainability of the food system, humane animal treatment and quality of life in rural communities. Drawing from the literature about the emerging structures of organizations in the "information age" led by persons like Alvin Toffler and Peter Drucker, many ask why the food system is continuing down the path of increased industrialization when many of the firms in the non-food sectors have moved away from the industrialization model? Linked to this question is the question: "Why is the public being asked to contribute large sums of research funding to promote a system that has such a questionable future?"

To Top