The U.S. livestock industry has suffered negative press for years. But in 2006, anti-animal ag groups received fresh ammunition for their cause – ammo that's still fired today, at will and without qualifications. And McDonalds and Walmart are listening.
The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization issued a 2006 report entitled "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options". It was a 284-page indictment of the harmful effects of livestock on the global environment.
Consider the opening round of the summary and conclusions section: "As we have seen, the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as a whole. Globally, it's one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity. In developed and emerging countries, it's perhaps the leading source of water pollution."
Related: How Sustainable is Livestock Production?
Despite major efforts of the U.S. beef to refute many of the report's so-called facts, it remains a much-quoted source for critics intent on curtailing U.S. food animal production systems. Despite much evidence to the contrary, these critics fail to recognize huge differences between how animals are produced in this country compared to countries with little or no environmental awareness.
One section delves into who should control how animals are raised. It's titled "Consumers may drive change towards a sustainable livestock sector." Here are its three major points:
* "Growing economies and populations combined with increasing scarcity of environmental resources and rising environmental problems are already translating into a growing demand for environmental services."
* "There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people, the relatively affluent, middle to high level income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries."