On Monday, December 16, the Environmental Protection Agency released its long-awaited final rule creating new guidelines for release of effluent from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), otherwise known as animal factories. 

With Christmas drawing near, it appears the Bush Administration has reached into their Santa's sack to dispense a generous gift to Big Ag, while turning a scrooge's ear to family farmers and the environment. 

The new guidelines fail miserably to set tough national pollution standards to protect rural America from the bane of factory farming. Instead the Bush Administration punts to the states where in many places Big Ag runs the agriculture agenda. They also removed a provision that would have prevented large corporations from skirting liability by hiring contract growers. 

In a press release, Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife said the "Bush Administration's new rule under the Clean Water Act will have devastating impacts on our nations air, water, and wildlife.

The EPA's giveaway to corporate CAFO operators will hurt the independent farmers out there who implement sustainable and innovative methods of dealing with livestock waste. It places the good environmental operators and the smaller operations at a huge disadvantage compared to the large CAFOs. Read more from the Washington Post.

2. FUNDING CONSERVATION PROGRAMS: COMBEST ENTERS FRAY

In the ongoing battle over whether the Office of Management and Budget should release technical assistance funds for conservation programs (for background, see Rural Updates, September 19, 2002 and October 16, 2002), outgoing House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest has taken sides -- against the release of the funding. 

In a November 26 letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, Combest advocates a narrow reading of one section of the Conservation Title (Section 1241 (b)), that would maintain a cap on technical assistance funding. He takes this view despite the fact that the title explicitly states (in Section 1241(a)), that the funding provided should "includ[e] the provision of technical assistance." With existing staff shortages and applications back-logs, the Natural Resources Conservation Service is not likely to be able to facilitate many of the new programs without sufficient technical assistance funding.

Three studies out this week add to the mounting evidence of negative impacts from large animal farm operations. The Consumers' Union, publisher of the magazine "Consumer Reports," tested chicken from grocery stores in 25 metropolitan areas and found that half were contaminated with campylobacter or salmonella bacteria. This figure represents a decrease in the contamination rate from their last study -- five years ago, 75% of chicken was found to be contaminated. However, 90% of the contaminated chickens contained bacteria that were resistant to at

least one antibiotic. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Sierra Club jointly issued a similar study last week, which found similar rates of both infection and resistance in 200 chickens purchased in Des Moines and Minneapolis. Both studies pointed to the widespread use of antibiotics as the cause for the resistance.

Also this week, the National Academy of Sciences release a report on air emissions from confined animal feeding operations. The report indicates that controlling emissions of ammonia, methane and other gases is as important as discharges into water. The report recommends development of standardized methods of measuring gas emissions and programs targeted at reducing factory farms' air pollution.

The "Dayton Daily News" has released a six-part series on megafarms in Ohio, covering a wide range of issues dealing with factory farms. The series includes 20 articles and opinion pieces, and gives voice to a wide array of stakeholders. Part I gives an overview of livestock farming trends in 11 states, and a look at the hidden costs behind America's quest for cheap and processed food.

Part II details the jurisdictional and budgetary maze associated with permitting and regulating livestock operations, and describes some of the environmental and animal-rights activism spawned by large animal farms. Part III describes some of the economic trends in livestock farming, and profiles several farm families faced with the choice of growing larger, investing in their own processing equipment, becoming a contract producer, or going out of business.

Part IV highlights the sometimes uneasy relationship between large farms and their neighbors, and highlights some of the economic advantages of returning to grass- feeding of cows. Part V details how communities across the country "are weighing the benefits of modern livestock farming against the costs to the environment and rural way of life." Part VI describes a somewhat ironic trend: even as many Americans are giving up farming, Dutch and German farmers are immigrating to the Midwest in droves to open large animal farms: drawn here by relatively cheap land and lax regulations. View the full series online. (Editor's note: If you are having trouble viewing the page with Netscape, try using Internet Explorer)

If you would like to subscribe or unsubscribe to this list, visit our
Rural Updates Subscriber Center