Apparently CAFOs Aren't Just Polluters, They're Racist

By Jennifer Hill

In a time of food insecurity and a growing world population it’s vital that agriculture producers remember that there are many enemies using the cover of environmentalism that seek to destroy us. Last week a letter from 218 organizations was sent to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan demanding that the EPA use its full authority to target Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, for air pollution.

The letter to the EPA makes some pretty wild claims including that air pollution from feedlots account for 12,700 deaths annually in the US, more than what they claim comes from coal fired power plants. That number comes from a “study” conducted in the Netherlands and shows clear biases right up front. In part the abstract states, “We show how food production negatively impacts human health…”. Just chew on that for a moment. Producing food that you need to survive, yeah that’s bad for your health. Unsurprisingly the abstract ends by calling for a meat free diet saying, “Dietary shifts toward more plant-based foods that maintain protein intake and other nutritional needs could reduce agricultural air quality–related mortality by 68 to 83%.” Notably the study, which calls for radical changes to the human diet, uses the words estimate, estimated or estimates more than 50 times. 

And of course, because it’s 2022 and the world has lost its mind, we cannot have pollution without racism. Addressing Regan the letter states, “Your home state of North Carolina is perhaps the most poignant example of the environmental racism associated with this industry and the devastation to communities of color caused by a lack of federal oversight.” The claim seems to be based on the theory that the pollution caused by CAFOs most negatively impacts minority communities, another head scratcher. Statistically the highest density of minorities exist in urban settings, which is not where you will find any feedlots.

The letter can be viewed here and the list of organizations that signed on is worth a gander. Many, such as Physicians Against Red Meat are unsurprising but there are a few that might raise eyebrows including Farm Aid and CatholicNetwork US. The letter ends by asking the EPA to stop excepting animal agriculture from many EPA standards and, “hold accountable the industrial livestock agribusinesses profiting from the exploitation of environmental justice communities.”

The letter comes of the wake of last month’s Supreme Court ruling limiting the role the EPA can play in regulating emissions, throwing that job back where it Constitutionally belongs, Congress. A decision which had environmentalists everywhere crying into their wheatgrass smoothies.

So how should ag producers respond to the battle that is clearly ahead? I’ve written before about our need to take back terms like sustainability, showing the general consumer the ways in which ranching has always been environmentally sustainable. Interestingly, the American Hereford Association appears to be jumping on the sustainable claim by engaging in research with Colorado State University looking into genetic differences of beef breeds and how they relate to methane production and nitrogen byproducts. They appear to be positioning themselves to potentially make the claim that Herefords are the sustainable breed. We will never sway the diehards who are working very hard to remove all meat from the human diet, the people who signed on to the letter, but we can impact the movable middle, many of whom enjoy our products and just need to be given permission to feel good about their dietary choices. Those are the people we must reach, both by educating them about what we do and illustrating the picture of what the world would look like without us. So keep sharing positive ranching posts, and consider selling some direct to consumer products to develop those relationships. Don’t be afraid of words like sustainable or projects that show what an environmental benefit we are. But stand firm in opposition to any further regulations, any increased demands on your operation and any partnerships or programs that seek to take land out of production for any purpose.