Farm to Table: The Need for Reform in the Factory Farming Industry

In the age of metropolitan advancement and technological innovation, many are fundamentally detached from the process by which they receive the food that they consume every day. Fewer and fewer Americans are exposed to the process of food production and the deeply entrenched mechanisms used to get groceries to the shelves. The meat industry is often emblematic of this, with consumers mostly unaware of the clandestine operations out of public view. Before meat makes it to the shelves, it must first be farmed. 

Factory farms, formally known as CAFOs, or concentrated animal feeding operations, account for 99% of farmed animals in the United States.1 What many are unaware of, however, is the process by which the meat they purchase is produced. CAFOs are large-scale meat production plants, with over 50 billion animals processed annually.2 The EPA characterizes CAFOs as “livestock operations where the animals are confined for at least 45 days in a 12-month period and don’t have access to grass or other vegetation during the normal growing season.”3 In other words, thousands of beef cows, pigs, and chickens are placed in small pens and fed to slaughter weight. This process usually takes around 6 weeks, significantly shortening meat production as a whole, and lowering prices substantially. The result is large swaths of cheaper meat, coupled with antibiotic resistance, eutrophication, animal cruelty, methane pollution, food waste, and other consequences, which make this one of the most contentious forms of food production. 

Until the late 20th century, most meat production came from smaller farms across the country. However, with the introduction of the New Deal and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, farm production was seriously reduced and prices hiked to account for the loss of prosperity and stability due to the Great Depression. Many believed that the concept of a flourishing industry and factory model could be applied to meat production as well, to allow for more production and cheaper resources, and thus, factory farming was born. 

Today, the impact of this cultural shift is tenfold. However, it comes with bilateral consequences. On one end, meat production has never been so inexpensive. The purchase price of meat 60 years ago was around $1, which equates to $7 in today’s standards.4 However, grocery stores today sell ground beef for around $5 a pound and chicken for about $1.50 a pound. Thus, meat is much more readily available and accessible across the nation. Leah Garces, the CEO and President of Mercy for Animals, explains, “where there might have been more an outdoor, free-range setting, 50 years ago, today we have 20, 30, sometimes 50,000 birds packed into one warehouse. So the economy of scale is tremendous, meaning the meat we eat, the chickens we eat, they are paying the price for this overcrowded, fast growth, that causes them a lot of suffering, but means that we’re getting this meat so much faster, so much cheaper.”5 

In order to produce such astronomical amounts of meat, however, there are many effects on public health, the environment, and the economy. The overpopulated living spaces for thousands of animals create a breeding ground for pathogens. Antibiotics are used to make animals grow faster, leading to a plethora of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According to the CDC, “more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals.”6 The spread of dangerous zoological viruses is a serious threat associated with the production of meat in factory farms. 

Factory farming’s massive impacts on the environment are also calamitous. 15.4 percent of global greenhouse gas production can be attributed to the factory farming industry, from CO2 emissions released by fertilizer to the burning of carbon fuel, and the release of methane through digestive processes. This number is almost equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions from the entire transportation sector, including the world’s planes, trains, buses, cars, and trucks.7 Factory farms also waste a substantial amount of the food they produce; 26% of farmed meat does not even make it out of the facility.8 Additionally, 260 million acres of land are cleared to grow crops to feed the livestock production. Even more critical is the amount of water needed to produce this meat. While domestic water use only accounts for 5 percent of water consumption, the factory farming industry accounts for 55 percent of water use. Aside from consumption, the water runoff from CAFOs leads to algal blooms in nearby water bodies and contributes to the process of eutrophication, which ultimately results in a dead zone: an environment where organisms can no longer live due to lack of oxygen. 

Additionally, through the transition to an overwhelmingly industrialized animal feeding operation, thousands of Americans lost their jobs and were forced to transition from a once rural, small farm lifestyle to one of factories spewing pollutants and destroying communities. “Economic concentration of agricultural operations tends to remove a higher percentage of money from rural communities than when the industry is dominated by smaller farm operations, which tend to circulate money within the community,” scientific data proves.9 Ultimately, the impact on the economic sector is one that is damaging and can devastate rural communities. By fundamentally changing the livelihoods of thousands of citizens, factory farming has uprooted countless locales. 

However, the answer to factory farming and its negative impact is much more complicated. The solution cannot be to simply transition the nation to plant-based or immediately shut down any and all CAFO facilities. There needs to be a much more nuanced approach toward this issue that is deeply ingrained in American society and culture. With the rising population of humans and corresponding higher demands for meat, it seems as though factory farming and industrialized animal agriculture is the only way to keep up. Be that as it may, there needs to be an effort to move away from the current system, which has a vast network of negative externalities. 

One proposition would be to have the EPA create a subcommittee dedicated to the reduction and eventual elimination of CAFOs within the United States. This subcommittee would be tasked with visiting and evaluating the practices of such factory farming facilities across the country. Legislation could begin by increasing the size thresholds for CAFOs while reducing the amount of animals allowed to be processed by each facility. This would mandate that factory farms would allow the animals more space to move, decreasing size-related ethical concerns and decreasing the food waste associated with these practices. Additionally, hygiene and cleanliness within the facilities would need to be standardized and closely monitored. Although it is difficult to monitor the sanitation of animal enclosures, adopting the aforementioned standards would allow for more regulation and the prevention of exploitation. Within the EPA, this may look like bi-annual checks on factory farm facilities and fines for those who do not follow the standards set. This subcommittee could then implement incentives, such as subsidies or tax breaks, for factory farms that use environmentally friendly practices, such as a reduction in water usage. Additionally, animal feed can be diversified to reduce the agricultural impact of producing livestock pasturage. 

Alongside the work of this subcommittee, more funding can be allocated towards scientific research on the improvement of the cultivated meat industry. Cultivated, or cultured, meat is a form of genuine meat production that harnesses animal stem cells to produce meat. This technique of meat production, “if produced using renewable energy, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 92% and land use by up to 90% compared to conventional beef.”10 By slowly transitioning to a meat industry reliant on such cultured meats, production of meat will no longer require ample amounts of water, land clearing, antibiotics, nor will there be as much greenhouse gas emissions or zoonotic virus epidemics. Cultured meat allows for meat to be produced at a rate that is responsive to demand, rather than leading to wastage or livestock overpopulation. Additionally, the economy will also be impacted positively. Tom Vilsack, the former Secretary of Agriculture, explains the fiscal advantage provided by this endorsement of research: “Studies have shown that every dollar invested in agricultural research creates $20 in economic activity.”11 This research could be paramount in not only developing better methods of meat production but also in improving the financial autonomy of the agricultural industry as a whole. 

The FY 2024 budget for the EPA provides $12.083 billion and 17,770 FTE for its operations.12 A $200 million initial investment in agricultural research and a $300 million investment in expanding factory farm operations could allow for a satisfactory start in transforming the meat industry. With respect to former Secretary Vilsack’s observations, this investment alone would generate a $4 billion return on investment for the economy. These financial returns, coupled with the generative tangible returns from infrastructure improvement, are bound to create a self-perpetuating cycle of advancement. 

These joint efforts will ensure that meat production can be produced as cheaply and efficiently through the cultivated meat industry, while still allowing for smaller, diverse farming operations to produce meat traditionally. The impacts of such a transition will be revolutionary. Meat quality will undoubtedly improve while reducing the detrimental effects on the environment, economy, and public health.