CAST Food-Animal Agriculture Symposium 

Sustaining Animal Agriculture: Balancing 

Bioethical, Economic, and Social Issues

United States Department of Agriculture

Jefferson Auditorium, South Agriculture Building

Washington, DC

June 8 - 10, 2010

Edited by

Richard Reynnells

USDA/NIFA/PAS

and

Linda M. Chimenti

CAST
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 PAGE 

Preface v

Symposium Sponsors vi

June 8, Day 1

General Session

Welcome

John Ferrell 1

USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs 

Welcome from CAST

Todd A. Peterson, CAST President 2

Integration of competing concepts surrounding the ethical use of food 

animals

Wes Jamison, Palm Beach Atlantic University 3

Impressions from the agricultural community regarding food-animal 

welfare and agricultural regulation

Gregory P. Martin, The Pennsylvania State University 9

Taking a look back to look forward

R. Douglas Hurt, Purdue University 16

Historical perspective of the integration of animal agriculture

Ron Plain, University of Missouri-Columbia 29

Consumer trust in the U.S. food system: Implications for communication 

and regulation

Stephen G. Sapp, Iowa State University 34

Redefining sustainability: Ethically grounded, scientifically verified 

and economically viable

W. Ray Stricklin, University of Maryland 41
ii

Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future food animal systems

Charlie Arnot, Center for Food Integrity 47

Janet Riley, American Meat Institute 48

Jay Vroom, CropLife America 49

JUNE 9, Day 2

Morning theme: Bioethical and animal welfare issues, rural and 

food-animal industry structure

Ethical and practical implications of food-animal agriculture

Paul Thompson, Michigan State University 54

Panel: Different perceptions of sustainable agriculture

James R. (Tres) Bailey, Walmart 55

Mike Morris, YUM Brands 56

Bryan Dierlam, Cargill 57

Panel: How can we move forward? The need for a collaborative vision

Jack Fisher, Ohio Farm Bureau 58

Chandler Goule, National Farmers Union 59

Christine Bushway, Organic Trade Association 60

Joseph M. Stookey, University of Saskatchewan 61

Dan Thomson, Kansas State University

North American Food Animal Well-Being Commission for Beef

JUNE 9, Day 2

Afternoon theme: Long term survival and food security

Economic impact of transitioning from swine gestation stalls to group 

pen housing

Brian L. Buhr, University of Minnesota 66
iii

Future welfare of farmers and their animals

John Deen, University of Minnesota 71

Panel: Comprehensive analysis of certification and regulatory programs: 

What is the future?

David Townsend, Smithfield Foods (Swine Industry) 72

Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton, Mississippi State University (Poultry Industry) 73

JUNE 10, Day 3

Morning Theme: Societal and global impacts

World and U.S. population growth: How can we feed everyone?

William Weldon, Elanco Animal Health 74

Should there be biotechnology in the future of animal agriculture?

L. Val Giddings, PrometheusAB, Inc. 75

Agricultural productivity strategies for the future

Gale A. Buchanan, Former USDA Under Secretary 79

Luther Tweeten, The Ohio State University

Bob Herdt, Cornell University 

Sustainability myths and musts—key animal agriculture issues 

moving forward to 2050

Jason W. Clay, World Wildlife Fund—U.S. 86

Trade considerations and OIE guidelines

Phil Seng, US Meat and Export Federation 108

JUNE 10, Day 3

Afternoon Theme: Societal and global impacts

Are the poor a recognized stakeholder?

Joseph Glauber, USDA Chief Economist 109
iv

Are farmers and rural communities destined to be second-class citizens?

Paul Lasley, Iowa State University 110

APPENDICES 115

APPENDIX A Program and Speaker Contact Information 117

 

APPENDIX B CAST Animal Welfare Symposium Steering Committee 126

APPENDIX C Referenced Papers 130

APPENDIX D Power Point Presentations 264

NOTES 387
v

Preface

Recognizing the fact that food-animal agriculture is rapidly evolving through inputs from diverse 

sectors, the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) in cooperation with the 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed and hosted a symposium for 

discussion of these issues. Titled Sustaining Animal Agriculture: Balancing Bioethical, 

Economic, and Social Issues, the meeting was held on June 8 – 10, 2010 at the Jefferson 

Auditorium, South Agriculture Building, Washington, D. C. 

The meaning of “sustainable animal agriculture” differs among the many groups involved in 

agriculture: to some, the term represents the status quo; to others, the same words express a 

need for change. The goal of CAST and the USDA in organizing this symposium was to bring 

together a highly qualified steering committee to identify a diverse group of speakers who could 

explore the many aspects of food-animal agriculture and its interaction with crops, land 

utilization, and society. That goal was met when thirty-two experts participated as speakers, 

panelists, or moderators during the 3-day event.

The symposium objectives were to (1) discuss the impacts of legal mandates, such as ballot 

initiatives or regulations, on food-animal agriculture at all levels including economics of 

production, rural demographics, animal welfare, and societal and global effects; and (2) analyze 

the intended and unintended consequences of voluntary and involuntary changes in food-animal 

management. The symposium, which was free to all attendees, was intended for an audience 

of decision makers and legislators in local, state, and federal offices, as well as industry 

personnel, consumers, students, and members of the media.

Many sources today are delivering widely varying messages about agriculture, often with an 

agenda rather than factual information. CAST’s mission, which it has carried out for 38 years, is 

to assemble, interpret, and communicate credible science-based information regionally, 

nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private 

sector, and the public. Through the support of its stakeholders, speakers, and the USDA, CAST 

was able to develop this meeting and deliver the information on a very timely, important subject. 

Two of CAST’s recent publications that are relevant to the symposium discussions were 

presented during the meeting: Agricultural Productivity Strategies for the Future: Addressing 

U.S. and Global Challenges, and Ethical Implications of Animal Biotechnology: Considerations 

for Animal Welfare Decision Making. These and other relevant CAST publications are available 

at the CAST website: www.cast-science.org.

On behalf of CAST and the USDA, we thank the steering committee members for their 

assistance, those persons who showed interest by attending, and all speakers and moderators 

who contributed their time and expertise to make presentations and provide other material for 

the proceedings. 

John M. Bonner Richard D. Reynnells

Executive Vice President, CEO National Program Leader, 

CAST Animal Production Systems USDA/NIFA
vi

Symposium Sponsors

The organizing committee gratefully acknowledges support from:

All speakers for their significant time and effort, with most waiving the requirement for 

reimbursement of expenses;

Financial support of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for providing 

the hearing impaired translator, extra security, and the publicity posters.

Gold Sponsors

Feedstuffs

Novus International, Inc.

Silver Sponsors

American Meat Science Association

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers

American Veterinary Medical Association

Elanco

Federation of Animal Science Societies

Faegre & Benson

Intervet Schering-Plough Animal Health

Murphy-Brown, LLC

Pfizer Animal Health

Smithfield

United Soybean Board

Bronze Sponsors

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation

United Egg Producers
1

Welcome

John Ferrell

USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Mr. Ferrell, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, most recently 

served as a majority staff member on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee 

under Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA). During his eight years with the Committee, he oversaw 

implementation of the 2002 Farm Bill and helped develop the 2008 Farm Bill. His priorities 

included improving organic research and transition assistance, providing new direct-toconsumer marketing opportunities, and strengthening livestock market competition laws.

Mr. Ferrell was raised on a farm in Iowa that produced cattle, hogs, corn, and soybeans. He 

received his bachelor’s degree in agricultural science and horticulture from Northwest Missouri 

State University and his Master’s degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Mr. Ferrell 

and Ann Wright are the two Deputy Under Secretaries for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
2

Welcome from CAST

Todd A. Peterson

President of CAST

Winfield Solutions LLC

It is my pleasure to welcome you to this symposium on behalf of CAST, the Council for 

Agricultural Science and Technology. CAST was established in 1972 with the goal of 

assembling and communicating sound scientific information on topics related to food and 

agriculture. CAST was created by visionary leaders in ag-related scientific disciplines, leaders 

who recognized the need to evaluate big cross-functional issues that affect everyone; at least 

everyone who eats. Forty years ago, we wondered if we could produce enough food to feed a 

growing population.....we still debate that today. We wondered about the long-term implications 

of our agricultural production systems and safety and sustainability of the inputs we use in plant 

and animal production systems......still an issue today. And, in 1972, we called on the best 

science available to provide feedback on the role of the public policy and investment on 

regulating how our food is, or should be produced. You see the pattern here; we still have a 

need for sound science-based solutions to society’s questions...which brings us to the reason 

CAST helped launch this symposium. 

I want to highlight yesterday’s release of the most recent CAST publication relevant to our topic 

at this meeting: Ethical Implications of Animal Biotechnology: Considerations for Animal 

Welfare Decision Making This is the 9th and final publication of a series of CAST publications 

called: Animal Agriculture’s Future through Biotechnology. The entire series and many more 

related publications are available for download at no charge at www.CAST-Science.org. I 

encourage you to visit the CAST website, check out and download the many topical publications 

available, and learn more about CAST in the annual report under the “About CAST” tab. Most 

importantly, I encourage you to look at the “Forthcoming Publications” section and check out the 

significant and relevant topics teams of scientists are currently addressing; you can look forward 

to reading these in the near future. Additional information about CAST and CAST publications 

is included in Appendix C. 
3

Integration of competing concepts surrounding the ethical use of 

food animals

Wes Jamison

Palm Beach Atlantic University

Introduction

Contemporary animal agriculture is typified by conflict and competition, not only for scarce 

resources and market share, but over the very nature of the production practices themselves. 

Increasingly, ethical considerations are raised as animal production assumptions and systems 

are questioned: can the confinement of animals to maximize the economies of size and scale be 

justified? This paper intends to provide a preliminary speculative discussion of the 

disintegration of consensus in animal agriculture, what is required to achieve consensus, and a 

discussion of alternative potential futures given the highly contested ethics of animal production.

 

Disintegration

The disintegration of consensus surrounding animal production practices may be traced to at 

least five distinct forces, each of which arguably has had a profound impact on cohesive and 

socially legitimate production practices: urbanization, philosophical and practical pluralism, a 

collapse of a relatively unified worldview concerning the animal-human relationship, 

delegitimization of optimistic scientific humanism, and the collapse of the “two standards” ethos 

regarding animal treatment.

Urbanization is commonly fingered as a culprit for the waning support, or certainly the increased 

ambivalence, for modern confinement animal production systems. The argument goes that 

people have lost contact with their food supply, e.g., “my bread comes from a supermarket!” 

Although a truism at a superficial level, urbanization leads to something more pervasive and 

therefore far more impactful: the development of an urban epistemology. It is true that people’s 

experiences with animals have changed, transforming from the day-to-day experience of 

animals on the farm as food supply or tool, to experiences of animals as companions. But more 

importantly, sociologists argue that mediating institutions and structures help organize and 

interpret reality. Thus not only has urbanization changed contact with animals, but it has also 

changed the interpretation of animals. Urbanites and suburbanites view animal treatment and 

animal production through the prism of pet ownership and treatment, and images of animals are 

mediated through media and social structures that heavily anthropomorphize animals.

Secondly, since the 1960s the rise and legitimacy of philosophical and practical pluralism has 

strengthened the critique of animal agriculture. Pluralism can best be described as a belief that 

accepts the legitimacy of multiple perspectives and of multiple ethical and moral viewpoints and 

seeks to reconcile them in a system that elevates no single perspective to a place of privilege. 

This implies that there are no sacred cows when it comes to ethics, that all systems can be 

argued as legitimate, and that all perspectives should be considered when making policy. 

Practically, this means that relatively exclusive policy mechanisms and processes that once 

were captured by the interests most directly impacted by them now have become inclusive. For 

example, cattle grazing policy and rates that were once the exclusive domain of the Bureau of 
4

Land Management and the western ranchers have increasingly been challenged and been 

attacked. This is to say that pluralism increases the quantity of viewpoints represented in policy 

decisions, and therefore diminishes the policy sway held by agricultural interests.

Interestingly, pluralism was foreseen by the Bill of Rights and reflected in the First Amendment’s 

right of free association. Madison realized in Federalist #10 that limiting free speech and free 

association was impossible, so he proposed a system whereby interest groups and their 

increasing replication would be encouraged, and conflict, rather than being avoided, would be 

encouraged through freedom of association---with all worldviews and ethical perspectives free 

to associate together with other like-minded individuals, and free to contest others. Each would 

serve as a check so that no one dominant interest would for long hold power. Thus, structurally, 

the legitimacy and rise of pluralism insured that agricultural policy and practices would be 

removed from the exclusive domain of farmers.

The first force, urbanization, led to an urban epistemology, a unique way of seeing nature and 

animals, which was heavily mediated by pet ownership and anthropomorphic images of 

animals. And the second force, pluralism, removed the realm of agricultural practices and policy 

from the exclusive control of farmers. Thirdly, prior to the 1950s it can be argued that 

Americans enjoyed a relatively cohesive and consensual worldview regarding animals. What 

can be called anthropocentric consumptive instrumentalism (ACI) dominated the accepted 

treatment of animals. ACI accepted the presuppositional right of humans to use animals as 

tools and commodities for human consumptive benefit as long as wanton pain and suffering 

were minimized. And it is no mistake that the collapse of ACI was concurrent with the growth of 

pet ownership. For reasons discussed previously, an urbanized culture whose experience with 

animals came as pets and heavily mediated images unrelated to confinement and slaughter has 

become increasingly receptive to ethics that propose protection for farm animals, that advocate 

for different production regimes, and that emphasize a different animal care ethos. 

Fourth, the profound delegitimization of optimistic scientific humanism has limited empirical 

agriculture’s ability to respond to production challenges. Any cursory review of literature from 

the early 1960s and reaching back to the 1930s illuminates a socially accepted faith in science 

and technology. There was a widespread consensus that science was basically unlimited in its 

ability to innovate and in its ability to confront and overcome problems. As one reads the 

popular and disciplinary literature, a striking optimism is seen regarding the human endeavor 

and humanity’s ability to overcome almost any obstacle: indeed, scientists could overcome 

almost any problem, and this optimism led to a social license to vastly increase agricultural 

productivity through science and technology. But equally striking is the contemporary erosion of 

that faith. Few observers of the social context of science would believe that such an unfettered, 

or uncritical, fiat now exists.

Largely derived from the pessimism of the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. Civil 

Rights, Environmentalism, the Vietnam War), ecological catastrophes such as the Cuyahoga 

River blaze and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the increasing complexity and 

incomprehensibility of modern science and technology, social attitudes regarding the ability of 

science to solve problems changed. It can be argued that American agriculture has been facing 

a rapid erosion of faith in agricultural science and technology, indeed a transmogrification from 

the mid-century narrative of scientific cornucopia to an early twenty-first century narrative of 

“genie-out-of-the-bottle” involving ambivalence and antipathy toward unintended consequences, 
5

unknown effects, and the general uncertainty of science. All this leads to a profound skepticism 

among elites and a receptivity for caution among the general public.

Lastly, and most significantly from an animal welfare perspective, is the collapse of the “two 

standards” ethos for the treatment of animals. Prior to the industrial revolution, a single 

dominant ethos guided Anglo-Saxon attitudes toward animals. As previously discussed, an 

anthropocentric consumptive instrumentalism predominated. A majority of people lived on

farms or in spatial or cultural proximity to farming, and thus consumptive instrumentalism was 

natural. But with the advent of industrialization and massive population relocation from farms to 

cities, and with the growth of disposable income among the middle class, animals went from the 

barnyard into the home: pet ownership took root in the industrial age, and with it a newly 

emergent animal treatment ethos. First advancing in fits and starts with rural-urban boundary 

issues such as dog-fighting, baiting, and beasts of burden, then spreading to generalized urban 

animal treatment, a new ethos derived from middle class sensibilities regarding both humane 

treatment and pet ownership took hold. This model can be called the “two standards” ethos. 

Pet animals and animals in mediated urban contexts were expected to be treated by one set of 

standards (more closely aligned with how a suburban middle class treated its pets), while 

society accepted that farm animals would be treated differently. In other words, people came to 

see a separate and unequal treatment regime driven by human utility: they could have their pets 

and eat animals too. As long as the egregious practices that offended the urban/suburban 

population’s sensibilities, and the large-scale but highly efficient production of animals were 

“out-of-sight, out-of-mind,” then the two standards approach fulfilled the social function of 

providing surrogate companionship as well as cheap, high-quality and safe animal products. In 

effect, two “uses” of animals emerged in the post-industrial revolution west: anthropocentric 

consumptive instrumentalism and anthropocentric aesthetic instrumentalism. People used 

animals for human benefit and for human pleasure in both systems, but the consumptive system 

involved the highly intensive consumption of animals and animal products, while the aesthetic 

system involved animal use for entertainment, companionship, etc. The former involved the 

termination of animal life, while the latter involved its perpetuation.

Integration

Nevertheless, with the advent of modern agenda building as a public policy strategy coupled to 

modern mass media, interest groups dominated by urban epistemology could publicize the 

incongruence between how animals were treated on farms and how consumers expected them 

to be treated as pets. This inarguably has had a sublime impact on social expectations of 

animal treatment and the social legitimacy of high-intensity animal confinement systems. In 

effect, groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane 

Society of the United States (HSUS) use modern mass and social media to tell a story of animal 

exploitation tailored to the sensibilities of the urban American consumers. They ask “Why do 

you love one [a dog] and eat the other [a pig]?” They advocate legislating the ability of farm 

animals to stand up, turn around, express natural behaviors, and have full lateral recumbency, 

all of which fits the expectations of the pet owning, animal-consuming public. But the very same 

public that openly supports the changing ethos of farm animal treatment as advocated by the 

HSUS tacitly supports the high-intensity, economically efficient production of animal products 

wrought by animal agriculture. Hence, American society is in the midst of the collapse of the 

two standards ethos in favor of an expansive, modified aesthetic ethos: gone are the days when 

farmers could justify separate and unequal treatment of animals as “that’s how pigs are raised” 
6

or as “the smell of money” or more crudely, “it’s just a stupid chicken.” Instead, advanced by 

astute agenda-setting media campaigns of animal rights and welfare advocates that illuminated 

the incongruence between the two standards of animal treatment, American animal agriculture 

is in transition toward a profoundly unsettled and ill-defined future.

Thus far, several causes of the disintegration of ethics regarding animal agriculture have been 

proposed: these include urban populations with a different understanding of animals and 

different uses for them who have become receptive to efforts of various non-agrarian interests 

to reframe and challenge the anthropocentric consumptive instrumentalism accepted by 

agriculture. Pluralism grants social legitimacy to those groups’ perspective and encourages 

alternative advocacy growth, and the delegitimization of boundless faith in agricultural science 

and technology to solve problems has led to skepticism and caution. Hence, the narrative that 

“science will get us out of this” is eroding. The old model may be replaced by a greatly 

expansive anthropocentric aesthetic instrumentalism.

But if this is true, then what does integration require? Basically put, integration of competing 

concepts regarding the ethical treatment of animals requires either shared values or shared 

experiences. Shared values involve ontological presuppositions about the nature of people and 

animals, and the relationship between them; shared values also involve practical interpretation 

of the acceptability of animal production practices. Shared experiences involve not only 

practical experience but a frame of reference informed by the experiences themselves, e.g. the 

epistemological concerns previously discussed. In other words, for integration to take place 

politically and socially, the contesting parties must share the same core values or the same core 

experiences. In the absence of such commonalities, intractable conflict is to be expected 

because compromise would require one or more of the parties to forgo their core definitional 

values. Likewise, intractable conflict is expected because of the widely disparate experiences of 

animals held by rural producers of animal products and the urban pet-oriented consumers. 

Simply put, competing and conflicting perspectives regarding the ethical treatment of animals 

are intractable exactly because they involve values, morals, ethics, and experiences, and our 

pluralistic society neither elevates one set of values above another nor denigrates marginal 

ones. And more important, moral arguments about the rightness and wrongness of animal 

treatment tend to be intractable because they carry with them the implicit assumption that 

opponents are not just ill-advised but immoral and even evil. Those sets of assumptions are not 

given to compromise.

Possible Futures

Therefore, ethical perspectives regarding animals have disintegrated, and given this social and 

political context the ability to resolve values-based policy disputes is problematic at best. 

Similarly, widely disparate experiences with animals and the differing expectation of their 

treatment make integration difficult. Nonetheless, what does the future hold for animal 

agriculture? What might be some potential developments in the widespread production of 

animal products?

First, coercive isomorphism may rule the day. This phenomenon occurs in advanced sociopolitical systems and basically results from economic, social, or political pressures exerted by 

some organizations upon other organizations that may be dependent on those systems. 

Coercive isomorphism also may result from social expectations within the context in which an 
7

organization exists. In other words, legislative, regulatory and consumer changes faced by 

American agriculture can be coercive in that they force adaptation. But because such changes 

raise the cost of production and decrease competitive advantage, production tends to move to 

areas and societies that minimize those pressures. Thus, off-shoring can be the net effect of 

economic, social or political pressures as American agriculture off-shores animal production to 

escape the coercive effects of regulation and changing cultural expectations. 

Second, science may indeed do an end-run around the issues raised by high-intensity animal 

confinement. Unforeseen but theoretically possible breakthroughs coupling food-science and 

biological engineering may produce animal products sans the animals, e.g. in vitro steaks and 

milk. This would remove the issue of animal treatment but engender an entire other set of 

social concerns. But science is a highly pragmatic endeavor, and an optimistic reading of the 

history of science indicates that oftentimes science, like water, takes the path of least resistance 

around complex issues. In other words, engineering sentience out of agricultural animals would 

relocate some of the debate about animal suffering away from animal treatment toward human 

motives. In this outcome, animal agriculture progresses in a type of dialectic, ratcheting 

between social Gordian knot, scientific solution, new knot, new solution, and so on. Likewise, 

although social anxiety about the risks of scientific complexity abound, science that works is 

generally science that is accepted. In effect, protest and social perturbation may slow the 

development and acceptance of new technologies and give voice to diffuse and vague 

discomfort, but ultimately if the science and technology addresses real needs and solves real 

problems, it will be adopted. Hence, in this view the current social disarray is merely social 

“noise” as culture moves between agricultural epochs, as food production shifts between 

paradigms.

Another possible outcome involves the development of a boutique agricultural system wherein 

consumers are given a vast array of choices to match their pluralistic value demands, e.g. 

organic carbon-neutral milk at a higher price than high-intensity confinement milk. In this 

system, those agricultural practices deemed offensive by shifting consumer preference and the 

expansive aesthetic instrumentalism mentioned earlier will either change, or change locations to 

remove the source of perturbation. A highly rationalized animal agricultural system that 

accounts for various value demands evolves, and involves both domestic and imported animal 

products.

Lastly, American animal agriculture may just continue to “muddle through”. In this, the lessons 

of British Petroleum and the Deepwater Horizon disaster are instructive. American consumers 

are subsumed in a petroleum-dependent economy, and are largely addicted to oil. This leads to 

demand for oil. Concurrently, they demand pristine environments that in many ways are seen to 

be vestigial remnants of a pre-European America. Environmental preservation has ascended in 

social value. And yet, those two cannot be easily reconciled; the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(ANWR) contains vast stores of oil, but is off limits because of the cross-cutting values of oil 

demand and environmental value. But drilling in the ANWR is a relatively technologically simple 

endeavor. The incongruence between the two values of cheap oil and pristine environment, 

pushes drilling “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” off the continental shelf in mile-deep water that 

requires technology akin to landing a man on the moon. Put simply, we want our oil and 

environment too, and the Deepwater Horizon represents the flawed, pragmatic attempt by a 

company to make a profit exploiting a natural resource in high demand while prohibited from the 

most readily available and rational sources. 
8

In this version of America’s animal agricultural future, consumers have an incredible ability to 

rationalize their behavior, to manage the incongruence and cognitive dissonance that comes 

from holding intractable and irreconcilable values, and to continue to enjoy both consumption 

and preservation. Subsequently, policy mechanisms become responsible for absorbing and 

mitigating social “noise” as the policy process deflects and exhausts perturbations and 

disruptions. Animal agriculture, like oil exploration, muddles through, adapting in response to 

perturbation until necessity forces change. In this future, there are no solutions, only processes 

to manage the abstract, competing and sometimes intractable social values projected onto the 

production of animal products, therefore minimizing disruption and giving agri-business time to 

adapt.

Conclusion

This paper has speculated that at least five factors have led to the disintegration of consensus 

regarding the ethics of animal agriculture. The net effect of those factors has led to the erosion 

of social acceptability for high-intensity animal confinement systems. Urbanization carries with it 

an urban frame of reference that is far less tolerant of farming practices once seen as 

commonplace. The growth and legitimacy of pluralism means that not only are opposing 

worldviews tolerated, but seen as equally valid and encouraged to multiply. The collapse of a 

cohesive worldview regarding animal agriculture, away from an anthropocentric consumptive 

instrumentalism, means social disarray can be expected. Also, the delegitimization of optimistic 

scientific humanism means that American society no longer vests unfettered faith in agricultural 

science or technology to solve its problems and no longer trusts an agri-industrial complex that 

promises an ever expanding and bright food future. And finally, the only feasible resolution to a 

culture that owns pets, is guided by mediating structures and institutions that define animals as 

something other than commodities, and yet craves high-quality, low cost animal products, was a 

“two standards” ethos that allowed different and unequal treatment for farm animals (those 

intended for consumption) and pets (those intended for long-term aesthetic enjoyment). 

Certainly, the collapse of the two standards, and the blurring of the line between companion and 

cuisine, friend and food, means that aesthetic animal treatment criteria are being expanded 

outward into the barnyard. And animal agriculture as we know it cannot exist under such 

circumstances.

One reality resists disintegration: animal agriculture ultimately prevails because animals take 

nature people can’t use and convert it into nature people can use. In effect, animal agriculture 

developed as a type of natural resource bank account, a living, breathing repository of fat, 

carbohydrate, and protein derived from nature and made more readily available for human use. 

It was true of Inuit peoples who hunted whales two thousand years ago, it was true of the 

Bushmen in the Kalahari who used animals as currency two hundred years ago, and it is true of 

the dairy farmer today. The methods and location of animal production may change, but the 

fact of its necessary reality will remain. And the social “noise” over the acceptable ethics of the 

what, where, why, and how of animal use will continue.
9

Impressions from the agricultural community regarding food-animal 

welfare and agricultural regulation

Gregory P. Martin

The Pennsylvania State University Extension

Introduction

If we assume that the 2% theory is correct, 2 % of our U.S. population is feeding us food. With 

330 million people in the U.S. today that would mean 6.6 million people are actively raising food 

for the majority of us. That would mean one farmer feeding approximately 50 or so people what 

they need every day. When you consider that not all farmers have animal enterprises, the 2% 

falls even lower meaning fewer farmers producing animal proteins for the rest of the U.S. 

population. 

Since much of the rhetoric in the media dealing with issues concerning animal welfare is 

positioned by people who may not be in direct contact with producers or animals, we were 

interested in seeing if these alternative viewpoints are being represented in the media. This 

questionnaire was targeted for those who raised animals or were in direct contact with people in 

animal agriculture. While this survey may not be inclusive of all viewpoints (e.g., not all farms 

have computers), we wished to get a measure of the tone of the agricultural community.

The Questionnaire

Questionnaire canvassing was conducted on SurveyMonkey over a period of three months 

ending on May 21, 2010. There were 1,210 respondents who started the questionnaire 

and1,077 (89%) completed it. Demographics showed that the majority of respondents were 

male, 55 years or older, and who raised food animals on medium to small sized farms.

50 Years or Older? Percent 

Yes 55.7

No 44.3

Are You:

Male 64.9

Female 35.1

Do You Raise Food Animals?

Yes 62.1

No 29.0

Not Applicable 8.9
10

What Size is Your Farm? Percent

Medium (51-450 acres) 27.9

I am Not Farming 27.4

Small 24.3

Large (451+ acres) 12.1

I prefer not to answer this 8.2

 

This was interesting to note, because many people look at agriculture as a large-scale

enterprise. Many sections of the country devoted to agriculture do have farms of medium to 

small status. In the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2007 survey of ag places, 

the average size farm in the U.S. at 418 acres1

. Further, large and very large family farms 

which made up only 9% of all farms in the United States, produce 63% of the value of all ag 

products sold2

.

Affiliations with agricultural organizations seem to be portrayed in the media as being strong, but 

were mixed in our findings. Most would like to be known as independent farmers first. Due to 

the relationship of cooperative extension to production agriculture a high number of respondents 

chose that category.

Group Affiliation Percent

Independent Farmer 25.0

Cooperative Extension 19.7

Organic, Natural, Free Range Producer 11.4

Other 10.8

Farm Bureau 9.6

Food Animal Veterinarians 8.5

Commodity Assoc. member/producer 7.9

The Grange 4.9

Animal Welfare Advocacy / producer 1.4

Farmers Union 0.7

CAST 0.3

 

1 www.agcensus.usda.gov or www.nass.usda.gov (accessed 5/21/2010)

2 2007 Census of Agriculture---Farm numbers 
11

Animal Welfare Responses

Of interest were the impressions from the group as to the effects animal welfare legislation / 

propositions would have on animal production. Several questions were posed to the group to 

find these trends (if any). Overall, most (85%) were at very least somewhat concerned about 

food animal welfare. With 2 % choosing “not sure”, this meant that almost all had an opinion on 

the subject.

How concerned are you about food animal welfare? Percent

Very 52.7

Somewhat 32.3

Not concerned 13.0

Not sure 2.0

Turning to who should be making regulatory decisions, for the most part, those who were 

questioned chose producer associations and farm groups as the method we should use to 

govern the industry. Next frequent was to allow the market to demand products that fit the 

markets’ animal care expectations. Of note was that ballot initiatives garnered the lowest 

percentage of choices, with elected bodies as seen in some states not gathering more votes.

Who should make regulatory decisions related to food animal agriculture? Percent

Producer associations & farm groups 51.8

Neither --- change should come from market demand 28.4

Elected legislative bodies 12.7

Voters via ballot initiatives 7.2

Two questions were asked to see how the group would perceive consumers and the market. 

Most felt that there was a disproportionate balance between the demands of the market and 

programs concerning animal welfare. They also felt that consumers were for the most part 

unwilling to pay for certification programs. 

Do consumer food expectations match proposed and mandated demands placed on food 

animal producers?

Percent 

No 72.3

Not sure 16.4

Yes 11.3
12

Do You think consumers are willing to pay for increased food costs due to certification 

or regulatory programs?

Percent

No 59.2

Not sure 21.0

Yes 19.8

Several questions dealt with the impact of animal welfare regulations on this group to see if the 

impressions expressed matched their responses.

What type of farmers do certification programs & regulations benefit most?

Percent

None (detrimental to all farmers) 25.5

All farmers regardless of size 23.8

Large size 23.1

Not sure 18.5

Small size 7.5

Medium size 1.7

How much impact do you think animal welfare initiatives, propositions & other legal 

mandates have on small communities & the rural infrastructure?

Percent

Severe 56.4

Moderate 27.0

Mild 7.5

Not sure 6.7

None 2.5

In general, what impact does consolidation of food-animal industries have on rural 

communities?

Percent

Negative 58.8

Not sure 18.9

Positive (promotes growth) 18.7

None 3.6

Since most of the questionnaire respondents were from medium to smaller farms, they did not 

always match in responses given. When asked who benefits most from animal welfare 

programs the respondents either chose Larger Farms, all farms or none, as they saw these 

programs as detrimental. Very few chose small- to medium-sized farms although demographics 

showed these farms as the most frequent association. Most respondents however saw that 
13

small communities would be impacted by initiatives on farmers. Eighty-three percent saw at

least a moderate to severe impact on such locations. Consolidation, as seen by those polled 

was a negative influence to rural communities and animal industries, with only 18 % seeing it as 

a positive influence.

When asked directly about the impact of ballots by size of farms the large portion of the 

demographic did match in response. Medium-sized farms were seen to be the most impacted 

by ballot initiatives. If we assume the statistic of average farm size still holds from the 2007 

census, then the ballot initiative would affect most farms in the United States.

What Impact do animal welfare ballot initiatives & propositions have on farms of size / 

scale?

None Mild Moderate Severe Not Sure

Small 3.6 17.3 17.5 52.5 9.1

Medium 0.8 4.5 39.0 46.0 9.6

Large 3.8 13.3 21.0 49.9 10.9

Comments

Four hundred fifty-four (454) comments were entered into the questionnaire. These varied from 

topic specific to unrelated issues of concern to the respondents. Publishing of the comments 

will be done at the discretion of CAST, and may be posted online at a later date. To summarize, 

most of the comments could be sorted into the following categories, with examples (as they 

were received):

General Comments

o Ok good job.

o The law of unintended consequences will ensure that whatever good is intended will be 

equaled or surpassed by negative results.

o Great job being done by producers. People more worried about nothing than raising their 

kids wholesomely.

o Animals should be humanely treated regardless of the cost....it is the right thing to do. It 

is barbaric and deplorable to subject animals to miserable living conditions just to save 

on cost. These are living creatures that feel pain and emotions just as humans. I don't 

care how the changes are brought about, but change does need to happen and I don't 

think we can assume that people will just do the right thing because we have seen that 

this doesn't work...too much greed and ignorance out there.

o I do have chickens, but no huge amount of land to farm on.
14

The Ballot Process, Initiatives

o Ballot initiatives are not science-based and should not be used to force animal welfare 

legislation. Animal Scientists and Veterinarians should be key individuals in the 

development of animal welfare initiatives.

o These type of ballot initiatives should not be allowed since the goal is not really animal 

welfare it is to stop food animal production.

o Frankly, the initiative process to implement animal welfare regulations is sufficiently new 

that I don't know anyone who really knows the consequences. We've been told, by 

special interest groups on both sides, what the consequences will be, but their opinions 

reflect their special interests.

Comments against organized animal welfare institutions

o What change is needed? Net returns to producers are directly connected to the care and 

comfort of their animals. My observation is that skilled extremists create a "crisis" that 

does not exist. It is called animal welfare, but in reality it is anti-animal agriculture. We 

will all go hungry if they continue to have success with their unreasonable efforts.

o Not a good idea - animal rightists so powerful and misleading that science is not taken 

into account, and people are constantly misled about what REALLY happens 99% of the 

time in agriculture.

o The education of the American public to the dangers of the Animal Rights movement is 

critical. The exposing of the hidden agenda should be a primary focus for the agricultural 

sector as well as those involved in national security. A nation that cannot feed itself due 

to over regulation driven by extremist emotion is doomed to be a servant to the world.

Education of public regarding animal welfare, farming, food

o Being from CA in the egg production business I can attest to the fact that ballot initiatives 

are not the way to go. However production animal agriculture is going to have to be able 

to reach an acceptable compromise with animal advocacy groups. Educating the 

consumer is the most important part of the equation. Farmers only want to produce and 

consequently have abdicated their rights to activist groups who want animal ag 

eliminated. It is imperative that ag gain back the confidence of the consumer. It's time to 

become marketers and educators as well as being producers.

o Today's public is so far removed from agriculture that they DO NOT know where their 

food comes from!! Modern Animal production practices were developed with the animal's 

well-being in mind. In the 1960's when my parents had cage free laying hens we had a 

lot more disease in the flocks due to Round Worm and Tape Worm infestations, Marek's 

disease and other viral diseases. There is now a vaccine for Marek's, and since the 

layers are in cages and can't eat their own feces we do not have a round or tape worm 

problem. The current environment for animals was developed to reduce disease and 

therefore reducing the use of antibiotics. Animal geneticists have selected blood lines of 

various species that are better suited to today’s practices. Today's farmer is producing 

MORE with Less!

o If we as farmers, make a conscious effort to educate our customers and their children 

about the food supply, we will benefit for years to come.
15

o In my experience, the general public has very limited knowledge of agriculture and 

cannot make informed decisions for producers.

Policy of animal welfare regulation

o Commodity groups need to be a leader in animal welfare standards. They should work 

with university researchers to stick with science based demands. They need to consider 

the unintended consequences, and seek to balance welfare with the environment, 

cost/benefit of changes to the producer and consumer and a heavy dose of common 

sense. Size of farms should not be the motivation. I fear food safety more on small farms 

than large.

o The most amazing thing I see with all the interest in legislating animal welfare /food 

safety is that there are no farmers involved. Legislators, unless they are farmers, don't 

know enough about the subject to write new legislation.

o I raise horses as well as cattle. The animal rights movement has killed the horse 

industry. I love my horses but there is not a market for cull horses this has effected my 

horse business dramatically and will force me out of the business. I sold two 

thoroughbred mares on the auction I got a $50 for one and $60 for the other one and it 

cost $68 to sell them. I don’t blame horse owners for turning horse loose on gov lands.

o The regulations are lobbied for by large producers to force out small farmers, reducing 

the competition, and monopolizing the market. The market needs competition to keep 

prices competitive and quality high.

o The group most qualified and with the most to gain and lose in creating regulations are 

the farmers and ranchers producing the product. They should be the ones to write the 

regulations in cooperation with Extension Specialists. Once the regulations are 

established then a good educational effort should be implemented that will inform the 

farmers and ranchers of the minimal requirements in animal husbandry. Once in place 

the regulations can be implemented by a state’s agriculture regulatory agency such as 

Departments of Ag or a Land Grant University. Keeping in mind that farmers need 

adequate time to retool if necessary.

Summary

One of the strongest messages I have gathered from this is that there needs to be more dialog 

among consumers, farmers and legislators/government on the issues affecting food production 

processing and distribution. Choice and the choices available to each group will be a factor in 

the success of agriculture to come. How successful that will be depends on the patience and 

persistence each group gives to the process.
16

Taking a look back to look forward

Food-animal production: A brief overview

R. Douglas Hurt

Purdue University

The history of food-animal production in the continental United States dates from the colonial 

period. However the application of science and technology to enhance production through 

improvements in breeding, feeding, and disease control date from the mid-nineteenth century 

when systematic research at the state and federal levels along with improved extension 

practices in the early twentieth century enabled farmers to improve their herds and flocks and 

achieve greater efficiency and production. The history of food-animal production in the United 

States is complex because it involves the intersection of science, technology, and public policy, 

the latter of which has individual components related to health and environmental issues that 

are not driven, framed, or controlled by livestock and poultry producers. It also is a history that 

includes not only cattle, swine, dairy, and poultry producers but also the processing industry, 

government agencies, and consumer groups at home and abroad. 

The history of animal food production is based on ten thousand years of observation and 

experience, that is, empirical evidence as farmers and later scientists worked to control and 

predict the quality and quantity of meat, eggs, and milk that farmers produced. Breeding often 

depended on size, color, and behavior. Equally important over time, humankind chose only a 

few animals for domestication and improvement for food purposes (Byerly, 1976). Moreover, 

during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, public policy makers influenced food 

animal production by seeking to ensure food safety and control large meat packers (Ferrier and 

Lamb, 2007). Overall, the history of food-animal production in the late twentieth century 

primarily involved the application of science to fundamental agricultural practices that linked 

farmers, ranchers, and other producers in their attempts to improve the nature and nurture of 

livestock and poultry. Animal and poultry science became the interdisciplinary domain of 

geneticists, chemists, physiologists, mathematicians and statisticians, engineers, and 

nutritionists, among others and, by the late twentieth century, increasingly influenced by 

environmentalists and consumer groups, which, in turn, shaped public policy. Pure and applied 

research became even more significant with the use of computers to assist genetic engineering 

and the manipulation of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to improve the production of meat, eggs, 

and milk ( Byerly, 1976). To gain a brief overview of the major developments in the history of 

food animal production in the United States, five general areas merit reflection. They are: (1) 

disease control, (2) biotechnology, (3) feeding improvements, (4) feedlots and marketing, and 

5) environmental and consumer concerns. 

Disease Control

Diseases have always plagued food-animal producers because an outbreak can quickly 

become difficult and costly to control and eradicate. Livestock and poultry producers by 

themselves cannot solve the problems of disease prevention, control, and eradication. Foodanimal producers necessarily have depended on scientists at the United States Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), state experiment stations, and land-grant 

colleges to cure and prevent livestock diseases (Wood, 1980). Among cattle raisers, 
17

tuberculosis, brucellosis, blackleg, foot-and-mouth, and Texas fever became the most 

dangerous, troublesome, and expensive diseases while hog cholera and Marek’s disease 

periodically troubled swine and poultry producers respectively (Byerly, 1976; Burmester, 1972). 

Advances in veterinary medicine reduced the loss of livestock and poultry to disease and helped 

protect human health. Between 1865 and 1914 scientists sought the causes of and ways to 

attack the major animal diseases and in the process discovered that microbes could carry 

diseases. This scientific discovery benefited livestock and producers alike (Schlebecker, 1975). 

The discovery that microbes could carry disease meant that immunization and medications 

could prevent the slaughter of sick animals as the only means to control or eliminate the 

disease. In 1882, for example, Robert Koch discovered the microbe that caused tuberculosis 

and eight years later developed a test for diagnosing bovine tuberculosis (Schlebecker, 1975). 

In 1892 veterinarians began testing dairy cows for tuberculosis and discovered an alarmingly 

high rate of diseased cows. When scientists later learned that humans could contract bovine 

tuberculosis, the public demand for the testing and elimination of diseased dairy cattle by 

slaughter brought anger and violence, in part, because some dairy farmers did not trust the 

accuracy of the tuberculosis tests (Olmstead and Rhode, 2007). In 1917, the federal 

government instituted a testing program and compensation for the slaughter of tubercular dairy 

cattle (Keeping Livestock Healthy, 1942; Animal Diseases, 1956). Thereafter, cattle and human 

health improved as well as milk production. By 1942, bovine tuberculosis essentially had been 

controlled, although not eliminated among dairy cows. A side benefit of tuberculosis testing on 

dairy cattle was the increased demand for the pasteurization of milk. Dairy farmers benefitted 

from healthy, tuberculosis-free cows that produced more milk (Schlebecker, 1975). About 1900, 

scientists discovered avian tuberculosis in poultry, but as late as 1940 no cure or protection 

existed. Hog producers also controlled tubercular swine by slaughter (Keeping Livestock 

Healthy, 1942; Animal Diseases, 1956).

In 1896 Bernhard Bang, a Danish scientist, discovered the bacteria that caused brucellosis in 

cattle, and in 1914 USDA scientist Jacob Traum isolated the bacteria responsible for the 

disease in swine (Animal Diseases, 1956). A year later, Alice Evans, a USDA scientist, proved 

that brucellosis, undulant fever, Malta fever, and contagious abortion were the same disease. 

Brucellosis became a matter for both veterinary and human medicine, because humans could 

contract the disease. Humans could avoid it by drinking pasteurized milk, but the disease 

posed a particularly dangerous hazard to dairy families (Keeping Livestock Healthy, 1942; 

Schlebecker, 1975). In 1930, USDA scientists developed a comparatively effective vaccine that 

brought the disease under control for cattle by the mid-1950s (Animal Diseases, 1956; Wood, 

1980; Schlebecker, 1975). No drug protected or cured swine infected with brucellosis, and 

slaughter proved the best control method to prevent its spread (Animal Diseases, 1956; 

Keeping Livestock Healthy, 1942).

During the nineteenth century Texas fever, a tick-born disease played havoc with the cattle 

producers on the southern and central Great Plains. Aided by the long cattle drives from Texas 

to the railheads in Missouri and Kansas, the tick-infested longhorns spread the fever to other 

cattle within reach of the ticks. Texas fever brought suffering and death to the cattle that 

contracted the disease and substantial financial loss to the farmers and ranchers whose 

livestock contracted the disease as it spread northward beyond the southern Great Plains and 

South. Only the northern region of the nation escaped because the ticks could not survive in 

the colder climate. Texas fever discouraged breed improvement, particularly upbreeding with 
18

purebreds, because the financial loss often proved too great a gamble for most cattle raisers 

(Hutson, 1994).

Federal and state quarantine laws provided modest but unreliable protection for cattle 

producers. In the absence of science, public policy could not solve the problem of Texas fever 

for cattle raisers. Although livestock producers suspected that ticks caused the disease, many 

scientists rejected that assumption. In 1889, however, Theobald Smith, a scientist in the BAI in 

the USDA, among others, discovered that a micro parasite in the red blood corpuscles caused 

Texas fever (Animal Diseases, 1956). A year later Fred L. Kilborne, who also worked for the 

BAI discovered that ticks carried the protozoan parasite, which passed the disease from animal 

to animal. Work at the Texas, Missouri, and Kansas State experiment stations, among others 

confirmed that ticks were the “transmitting agent.” Still a preventive solution was not discovered 

until 1906 when the BAI and the Live-Stock Commission of Texas began experimenting with 

arsenical dips based on research conducted in Cuba. Arsenical dips proved effective and did 

not harm the cattle. By the end of World War I, arsenical dips that killed the ticks and prevented 

the spread of Texas fever and state quarantine laws that helped control isolated outbreaks of 

the disease gave cattle producers peace of mind while saving herds and improving production. 

By 1940 Texas fever no longer threatened cattle producers (Smith and Kilborne, 1893; Hutson, 

1994; Schlebecker, 1975; Keeping Livestock Healthy, 1942, Animal Diseases, 1956). 

In 1897, scientists at the Kansas State Agricultural Experiment Station tackled the problem of 

blackleg, arguably the most costly of all diseases for western cattle producers. This infectious, 

usually fatal, disease that particularly endangered young upbred cattle killed as much as 25 % 

of the annual new-born calves in some areas (Animal Diseases, 1956). In 1900, the BAI 

reported that blackleg caused “greater losses in the Southern and Western states than all other 

diseases combined” (Wood, 1980). Only prevention gave livestock raisers security because 

once an outbreak occurred devastating cattle losses followed, and the organism that caused 

blackleg produced spores that remained active in the soil for years. Consequently, cattle could 

become infected from the same pastures or feedlots long after an outbreak. In 1916, scientists 

at the Kansas State Agricultural Experiment Station developed a vaccine from the blood of 

horses and later calves that provided permanent immunity from the disease. Other 

improvements followed and cattlemen essentially could protect their herds from blackleg by the 

early 1920s, but the disease remained a problem through the decade (Animal Diseases, 1956; 

Wood, 1980; Schlebecker, 1975).

Foot-and-mouth disease struck the livestock industry as early as 1902 and periodically 

thereafter, with the last outbreak in 1929. Livestock producers quickly stopped the spread of 

this extremely contagious disease by slaughtering and burying the infected cattle, swine, sheep, 

and goats, but no cure or vaccine existed for the virus, and the disease killed the infected cattle 

(Keeping Livestock Healthy, 1942; Animal Diseases, 1956). Cattle producers with infected 

livestock necessarily slaughtered their animals if any contracted the disease and they burned or 

buried the carcasses to prevent further spread. The temporary eradication of foot-and-mouth 

disease through slaughter proved costly to cattle raisers who often opposed or refused to 

slaughter animals that seemed healthy (Schlebecker, 1975).

In 1914 a major outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease reached epidemic proportions from 

unknown origins in Michigan and quickly spread by hogs shipped to the Chicago stockyards 

from where contaminated cars carried the disease to twenty-two states. Before the disease was 
19

controlled approximately 200,000 cattle valued at $7 million had been slaughtered and the St. 

Louis and Chicago stockyards closed and stock shipments ceased (Wood, 1980). Although 

German scientists discovered the virus that caused foot-and-mouth disease in 1914 and 

ultimately developed a vaccine, American livestock producers preferred slaughter as the most 

cost efficient means of control. Vaccination did not bring the disease under control until the 

1950s (Keeping Livestock Healthy, 1942; Animal Diseases, 1956; Schlebecker, 1975). 

By the mid-twentieth century, then, the major cattle diseases of tuberculosis, blackleg, Texas 

fever and foot-and-mouth had been eliminated or substantially controlled. In 1907, BAI 

scientists tested a vaccine to fight hog cholera, and by the early 1940s an anti-hog cholera 

serum to prevent the virus from spreading to healthy swine was readily available and the 

disease brought under control (Keeping Livestock Healthy, 1942; Animal Diseases, 1956). 

Brucellosis, however, continued to be a problem for beef and dairy producers. Mad cow 

disease or BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) also remained incurable but essentially 

nonexistent since its discovery in the United States in December 2003 which led to the closure 

of world markets to U.S. beef (McGarity, 2005). The BSE outbreak proved isolated and limited, 

and domestic consumers continued to eat beef, although Japan and several other nations 

temporarily halted U.S. beef imports. Still, BSE reminded livestock producers that animal 

diseases known and unknown could prove devastating. If the past was a guide, eternal 

vigilance by the scientific and producer communities proved essential (Corah, 2008). Yet, by the 

twenty-first century veterinary medicine had saved livestock and poultry producers millions of 

dollars and proved additionally beneficial during times of low market prices (Wood, 1980). 

Biotechnology

During the late nineteenth and twentieth century, the introduction of bioengineered hormones to 

enhance growth and production provided benefits as well as caused problems for livestock 

raisers. The introduction of the first major bioengineered growth hormone for agriculture, 

recombinant bovine somatotrophin (rbST, hereafter also bST), launched a contentious and 

complex debate between scientists, producers, and consumers, including animal welfare and 

environmental groups, the latter particularly regarding food safety. Yet, bST complemented 

innovations in dairying such as mechanical milking, bulk tanks, embryo transfer, and artificial 

insemination, and many producers used it to stimulate greater milk production. Some dairy 

specialists contended that bST could increase milk production by 25 %, but critics charged that 

it would drive small-scale produces out of business and exposed consumers to unknown health 

risks (Molnar, Cummins, and Nowak, 1990; Krimsky and Wrubel, 1996; Sugarman, 1989; 

Corey, 1990).

BST did not become an important growth hormone for the increase of milk production until the 

early 1980s when production costs enabled its large-scale production. In 1985, the Food and 

Drug Administration ruled that milk and meat produced from bST-treated cows was "perfectly 

safe for human consumption" and that it was as nutritious as milk from cows not treated with 

bST (Juskevich and Guyer, 1990). A social firestorm over bST, however, developed because 

some medical, veterinary, or animal nutrition scientists contended that recombinant bST might 

pose a health risk for humans (Molnar, Cummins, and Nowak, 1990). Despite strong scientific 

evidence that recombinant bST and natural BST were indistinguishable in cows and that rbST 

posed no threat to humans, some consumers feared that milk produced with chemical 

enhancement posed either immediate or long-term health risks (Krimsky and Wrubel, 1996). 
20

In 1989, consumer, environmental, and animal welfare groups campaigned against bST in milk. 

Kraft USA and Borden's announced that they would not use bST milk in their dairy products and 

Ben and Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream noted on its containers that the company opposed the 

use of hormones to increase milk production and that it supported small-scale dairy producers. 

Safeway, Kroger, Supermarket General, Stop and Shop, and Vons, which ranked among the 

largest of the supermarket stores, announced that they would not purchase dairy products from 

producers who had injected their cows with bST (Krimsky and Wrubel, 1996; Corey, 1990; 

Sugarman 1989). In addition, the Associated Milk Producers, Inc., the nation’s largest dairy 

cooperative, announced that its members would not use bST (Corey 1990). Consumers worried 

about the safety of bST and these businesses target those fears (Juskevich, Cummins, Nowak, 

1990). 

The safety of bST could not be resolved for everyone because the scientific evidence proved 

ambiguous. When large doses of rbST are given to cows higher levels of bST are found in the 

milk. Yet, some scientists contended that although rbST cannot be detected in milk that fact 

alone did not ensure safety. In 1991, however, the National Institutes of Health concluded that, 

“There are no data to suggest that BST present in milk will survive digesting or produce unique 

peptide fragments that might have biological effects.” Two years later (1993), the FDA ruled 

that, “There is virtually no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.” Dairy 

producers might not be confused but the public remained uncertain, even fearful of bST milk. 

Some dairymen and consumers wanted to solve the problem by labeling milk bST-free despite 

its natural presence in milk. The FDA, however, ruled that such labeling would be illegal 

because it would mislead consumers. Nevertheless, the FDA provided that milk companies 

could label milk as bST-free if they also added that, “No significant difference has been shown 

between milk derived from cows that were given the drug and cows that were not.” This 

solution satisfied neither side (Krimsky and Wrubel, 1996).

While large-scale and small-scale dairy producers argued over the benefits of bST, the Humane 

Farming Association (HFA) contended through a national publicity campaign that bST was as 

dangerous as diethylstilbestrol (DES) which beef cattle producers had used to increase gains 

but which had proven to be a cancer causing agent. Playing on the fear of the unknown the 

HFA reported that, “No one knows what effect this secondary hormone will have upon 

consumers of bGH [biological growth hormone] treated milk.” Monsanto, the largest producer 

of bST, countered with a national advertisement that read, “You’ve had BST and cookies all 

your life.” While dairy producers worried about the effect of rBST on the price of milk due to 

increased production, consumers worried about the health risk of drinking bST milk (Krimsky 

and Wrubel, 1996).

In 1994, the FDA approved the use of bST for commercial dairy producers (Zinn and BravoUreta, 1996). Overall, dairymen considered bST cost effective, although increased production 

necessitated additional government purchases of surplus milk, primarily for butter, for 

distribution in food programs. Some agricultural economists still contended that bST would 

lower milk prices and drive small-scale dairy farmers out of business (Molnar, Cummins, and 

Nowak, 1990). The social costs of bST, however, proved less exact and more difficult to 

calculate (Krimisky and Wrubel, 1996). Moreover, until the 1990s the public had considered 

milk a nearly perfect food. It was safe through pasteurization, consistent through 

homogenization, healthful with vitamin D fortification, and comparatively low in fat (Corey, 
21

1990). Consumers, however, remained fearful about the possible side effects of milk produced 

by hormones, genetic engineering, and the injection of chemicals into cows. The assurances of 

agricultural scientists, government agencies, and manufacturers confirming the safety of bST 

but could not overcome these fears. At the same time, the dairy farmers most likely to use bST 

were younger, more educated, and better managers, and they also milked larger herds than 

non-users (Zinn and Bravo-Ureta, 1990). By the end of the twentieth century, the dairy industry 

depended on time to end consumer apprehension, because as one observer noted, “The 

concept of a pure and natural food is culturally determined, mediated by historical tradition and 

corporate persuasion” (Krimsky and Wrubel, 1996).

Thus, while government agencies have declared bST safe, as long as a small minority of 

scientists questioned its use, consumers considered bST milk a possible health hazard that was 

not worth the risk, all to the detriment of dairy producers. At the same time, small-scale 

producers remained unconvinced that increased milk production was in their economic interest 

(Molnar, Cummins, and Nowak, 1990; Krimsky and Wrubel, 1996). By the mid-1990s, only 9.4 

% of all dairy operations injected rBST although 31.9 % of the dairy farmers with more than 200 

cows used it. Dairy farmers with fewer than 100 head generally preferred to forego the use of 

rBST. Part of the resistance might be attributed to higher feed requirements when the cows 

begin increased milk production (Coppock, 2002). 

Breeding improvements also advanced meat production, sometimes by creating new breeds, 

such as the Santa Gertrudis, Brangus, and Beefmaster, for cattle producers. In 1953 the 

discovery of the double helix of DNA by James D. Watson and Francis Crick began a new age 

of molecular genetics that enabled revolutionary change in animal breeding. Artificial 

insemination facilitated the rapid dissemination and increase of these new beef cattle breeds, 

and it increased milk production by the progeny of artificially bred dairy cows (Stephens, 1982). 

In 1946, artificial insemination and genetic engineering also produced a new hog called 

Minnesota No. 1, soon followed by the Hamprace. Similar breeding developments occurred for 

poultry producers (Schlebecker, 1975). By the turn of the twenty-first century, however, the 

public kept a watchful eye on genetic engineering in fear that the genie would escape the bottle 

or that scientists would open the proverbial Pandora’s Box. Concerns about disease, land 

costs, and feed efficiency also remained concerns of livestock and poultry producers. New 

breeding, production, and niche marketing developments suggested growth possibilities for the 

future, but these changes would remain consumer driven (Corah, 2008; Middleton and Gibb, 

1991).

Feeding Improvements

During the twentieth century advances in animal nutrition, minerals, vitamins, or other chemicals 

that livestock producers add to feeds substantively improved food animal production, particularly 

after 1940 (Summons, 1968). In 1900 animal nutritionists only knew that proteins, fats, 

carbohydrates, and some inorganic salts improved animal diets. Yet, between 1912, when 

Polish scientist Casimir Funk coined the term vitamin, and 1930, vitamins A, B, C, D, and E 

were discovered along with the value of various trace mineral additives, such as calcium, 

phosphorus, and iodine, among others for good nutritional health. In 1922 with the discovery of 

vitamin D, poultry raisers could now produce chickens indoors year-round. The problem of 

rickets no longer limited indoor production, thereby enabling the expansion of the poultry 

industry to colder and more environmentally inhospitable areas (Byerly, 1976).
22

Livestock producers began using more vitamin-enhanced feeds during the 1940s to help 

increase meat production for the war effort. Moreover, in 1948, Karl Folkers and other scientists 

working for Merck and Company discovered vitamin B12 which increased food utilization in 

chickens and hogs (Marcus, 1994). Swine and poultry producers quickly began using feeds 

fortified with vitamin B12. During the early 1950s scientists also recognized that certain 

antibiotics and synthetic amino acids used as feed additives enhanced growth. By the 1960s 

antibiotics had revolutionized the livestock and poultry feeding industry (Summons, 1968; 

Schlebecker, 1975).

The discovery of vitamin B12 and the benefits of antibiotics as feed additives also contributed to 

the discovery of the hormone stilbestrol as a feed additive (Summons, 1968). In 1951 after a 

series of experiments, Wise Burroughs and others discovered that cattle and sheep feeds 

fortified with the synthetic hormone diethylstilbestrol, commonly known as stilbestrol or (DES), 

produced greater weight gains with less feed and more speed (Marcus, 1994; Schlebecker, 

1975). In 1954, the FDA approved the use of stilbestrol as a cattle feed additive, and livestock 

raisers quickly adopted this feed supplement. By the end of the decade agricultural economists 

reported that every dollar invested in a stilbestrol-enhanced feed returned $11.50 from cattle 

sales. By the mid-1950s feedlots customarily used DES to help fatten steers (Byerly, 1976). A 

decade later, an estimated 85 % of all beef cattle consumed feeds fortified with stilbestrol and 

95 % of the cattle feeders used the synthetic grown hormone (Marcus, 1994).

Swine and poultry producers also learned that their hogs and chickens reached market sooner 

when their feeds were enhanced with vitamins, antibiotics and other additives (Summons, 

1968). Urea, the first organic chemical to be synthesized became an important protein feed 

additive after production costs declined following World War II. Folic acid would soon become 

important for poultry and animal nutrition after its discovery in 1946. Moreover, feed additives, 

particularly antibiotics, improved animal health. Feed additives not only increased animal 

nutrition---which improved production and profits---but also enabled producers to concentrate 

production and produce on an industrial scale. After 1960, fewer farmers raised a small number 

of cattle, hogs, and chickens. Increasingly producers specialized, often in large-scale 

confinement facilities, and they used chemistry to facilitate production on an industrial scale 

(Summons, 1968).

After 1950, hormone growth stimulators and antibiotic feed additives dramatically increased 

meat production (Perry, 1992). Consumers, however, increasingly questioned the health risks 

of prolonged consumption of beef, pork, and poultry produced with additive-enhanced feeds, 

particularly the hormone stilbestrol. As a result, in 1958, Congress approved the Food Additive 

Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. The new legislation, known as the 

Delaney Cancer Clause, required the producers of feed additives to prove the safety of their 

substances, and it provided that “no food additive shall be deemed safe if it is found to induce 

cancer when ingested by man or animal.” Although the DES was not implanted in edible meat, 

public concerns about safety emerged during the 1960s. By the late 1970s, laboratory tests 

indicated that DES caused cancer, and the federal government banned it in 1979 (Marcus, 

1994; Friedberger, 1994). Consumers also feared the use of antibiotics in feed grains but they 

had less success prohibiting those products. Although FDA surveillance of the use of antibiotics 

and other feed additives increased during the remainder of the twentieth century, the producers 
23

of food animals often believed that public opinion, not science, substantively influenced their 

stock raising practices (Perry, 1992). 

They were correct. Since 1989, the European Union (EU) has banned imports of hormonetreated beef. The EU determined that public health concerns merited the ban because 

European consumers wanted “risk-free” foods. Some grocery chains in the United Kingdom also 

refused to sell meat produced by cattle fed with genetically modified grain (Lusk, Roosen and 

Fox, 2003). EU bans, which generated considerable trans-Atlantic acrimony, were generated 

as much by political needs to provide tariff protection and assert nationalist power as by 

scientific evidence (Wiener and Rogers, 2002).

Feedlots and Marketing

Although the feeding or fattening of cattle on corn dates to the early nineteenth century along 

the Scioto River Valley in Ohio, the feedlot industry developed during the last half of the 

twentieth century (Hudson, 1994; Henlein, 1959; Mintert, 2003). During the 1940s the cattle 

feeding industry began to shift from the Midwest Corn Belt states of Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota, 

and Minnesota to the Great Plains of Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska. By the early 1960s, the 

cattle feeding industry had expanded to the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas (Corah, 2008). 

Increasingly, in the central and southern plains the Ogallala aquifer provided water for the 

irrigation of feed crops that permitted farmers to raise corn where that crop would have been 

impossible without irrigation (Opie, 1993). Cattle feeders soon developed feedlots to maximize 

their investment with close proximity to feed and stocker cattle. The packing plants arrived soon 

thereafter to provide a nearby market which helped reduce transportation costs (Nall, 1982). By 

2002, 74 % of the fed cattle marketed in the United States originated in the Great Plains, with 

Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska the largest cattle feeding states and which collectively marketed 

60 % of all fed cattle in the nation (Mintert, 2003). At the same time, 80 % of the steer and 

heifer slaughter occurred in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas (MacDonald, 2003). The 

nexus of feed grains, water, stocker cattle, transportation, and the economies of scale that 

encouraged the development of large-scale packing plants indicated that this aspect of the 

feeder cattle industry would remain prominent into the twenty-first century with only the 

depletion of the Ogallala aquifer a potential problem that would cause the restructuring of the 

industry.

At the same time, the number of feedlots declined while production remained essentially the 

same from 1970 to 1995. In 1972, 104,613 feedlots in the thirteen major cattle feeding states 

marketed 23.9 million cattle. In 1995, only 42,435 feed yards remained, but they marketed 23.3 

million cattle for an increase per feed yard marketing of 141 %. In 1972 feed yards with more 

than 1,000 head marketed 65 % of the cattle, but by 1995 they marketed more than 

90 % of the fed cattle. Moreover, by 2002 feed yards with a capacity of 32,000 head marketed 

49 % of all cattle sold in the United States, up from 29 % in 1982. In addition, the ten largest 

feedlots marketed as much as 29 % of the fed cattle sold in 2002. The feedlot industry, then, 

has consolidated while the number of fed cattle marketed has remained essentially the same 

(Mintert, 2003). By the turn of the twenty-first century, the feedlots had declined in number but 

increased in capacity. The feed yards also became concentrated in the central and southern 

Great Plains, and financing often came from investors outside of agriculture. Shipping fever, 

however, remained an unsolved problem for cattle coming to the feedlots for fattening, although 
24

livestock producers had access to vaccination, nutrition, and management programs designed 

to reduce losses due to this respiratory condition (Perry, 1992).

Cattle marketing also changed substantially during the twentieth century. During the early 

1900s most livestock was slaughtered on farms, by local butchers, or at major meat packing 

plants in Chicago, Omaha, and Kansas City, among other meat packing towns. Farmerstockmen and ranchers either trucked their livestock to market or shipped their cattle and hogs 

by rail. After World War II, road improvement enabled trucks to provide more convenient 

shipping than by railroad and the meat packing plants moved closer to cattle feeding operations. 

Where more than 90 % of all cattle were sold to packers at terminal markets in 1925, by the late 

twentieth century packers purchased less than 10 % of their cattle though terminal markets. By 

the turn of the twenty-first century meat packers purchased nearly all of their cattle from nearby 

feedlots. Direct marketing saved packers money because they no longer paid feed and yardage 

costs that the terminal markets usually assessed users. Moreover, cattle were handled fewer 

times in the shipping process from feeder to packer, and the packers could schedule their 

slaughter operations more efficiently if they purchased systematically and directly from the feed 

yards (Perry, 1992). By the early twenty-first century the feeding, marketing, and packing 

system had become efficient operations.

Environmental and Consumer Concerns 

Although large-scale cattle, hog, and poultry producers operated systematic efficient, and 

profitable operations during the late twentieth century, they increasingly confronted state and 

county governments and nonfarmers over issues of water and air pollution. State and county 

governments now sought regulatory authority, while neighbors of hog confinement facilities and 

cattle feedlots frequently complained that such operations ruined their property values and 

made life unpleasant for nearby residents, and they became increasingly litigious (Hurt, 2002). 

Consumers might enjoy a pork chop or steak from the patio grill but they did not want to smell 

the confinement facility or feedlot that produced it. They also demanded that state and local 

governments preserve streams and rivers from the overflows of sewage pits and eliminate the 

stench from the confinement facilities or from the fields that had been fertilized with the wastes. 

Livestock producers used their organizations to lobby against passage of overly stringent 

regulations. By the end of the twentieth century, however, they did not control the agricultural 

and environmental political agenda. Environmental regulations increasingly mandated change, 

particularly for feedlot, poultry, and hog confinement and dairy operations, especially regarding 

control of manure waters. At the same time government requirements seldom considered the 

economic and management aspects of these regulations beyond the farm gate. If the past is a 

guide livestock producers can expect more environmental regulations and government oversight 

at all levels as well as continuing consumer attention (Morse, 1996). 

Indeed, until the 1950s most livestock and poultry producers were little troubled by consumer 

concerns, and they raised their animals without drugs, growth hormones, or feed additives. The 

public generally worried about the wholesomeness and safety of food after slaughter as 

carcasses worked through the meat packing process. During the 1960s, however, the 

“consumer revolution” saw the emergence of private nonprofit groups that became public watch 

dogs with their focus on livestock raisers as well as meat packers, processors, and distributors, 

particularly in relation to the cattle industry. By the mid-1960s, consumer groups were 

concerned about food safety. Moreover, consumer advocates did not distinguish between cattle 
25

raising by ranchers and small-scale farmers and industrial-scale feedlots that process tens of 

thousands of cattle annually. In addition, they had their own views about land use for the public 

good no matter the private ownership by producers. As consumer advocates and livestock 

raisers contested over the issue of land stewardship, the public demand for regulation of the 

livestock and poultry industry for the common good brought the federal government into the 

debate and with it increasing government control and regulation (Friedberger, 1994; Skaggs, 

1986). 

During the early 1960s as consumers became increasing concerned about food safety, one 

observer correctly noted that, “Americans are going to become more informed about their food 

supply. Food like most other basic commodities will become more of an intellectual concern 

and more of a political concern.” By the 1970s nutrition and health dominated the agenda of 

the consumer advocates who often considered cattle producers the enemy. During the 1980s 

polls indicated that approximately 75 % of consumers worried about food safety, including the 

use of drugs, such as antibiotics, and chemicals, such as growth hormones and various feed 

additives. Some consumers stopped eating beef. Livestock raisers proved slow to counter 

those attacks (Flake and Patterson, 1999; Friedberger, 1994). 

Conclusion

In retrospect, by the turn of the twenty-first century, food-animal producers anticipated the 

further development of global markets as incomes improved in developing nations, and the 

China market proved a compelling lure. Tariff protection, particularly by European nationalists, 

however, continued to make livestock production a political matter as well as an industry based 

on science, capital, and management skills. Foreign competition remained keen, particularly 

from Argentina, Brazil, and Australia (Corah, 2008). Food-animal producers no longer thought 

in terms of animal husbandry but rather animal science. Moreover, food animal production 

involved far more than emphasizing the most efficient means possible. Rather, it was part of an 

integrated food system driven as much by consumer demand which was affected by nutritional, 

health, and safely concerns, and politics in the form of regulations and restrictions, both 

domestic and international---as it was by science, technology, and management. Food-animal 

producers confronted those who urged them to use “prudent precaution” to ensure public health 

and reject the pursuit of “risk-superior” ways to improve production. Indeed, food animal 

production had become a sophisticated and complicated matter of animal science and politics 

(William, 1986; Fajt, 2007; Weiner and Rogers, 2003).

If the past is prologue, food-animal producers will see more procurement by contract sales and 

vertical integration with the further loss of small-scale operators and producer independence as 

well as more emphasis on country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food safety and 

environmental issues will remain at the forefront of public policy (Loureiro and Umberger, 2007; 

MacDonald, 2003). Animal rights and welfare during handling at feedlots and slaughterhouses 

may become increasingly important issues (Grandin, 2006; Grandin, 2001; Guither, 1998) While 

animal rights activists have considered food-animal producers inhumane and unethical, many 

producers considered these advocates irrational and radical. If anything is certain, based on the 

history of food-animal production, it is that the industry will continue to change, driven by 

science and technology as well as politics and public policy. 
26

Works Cited

Animal Diseases: The Yearbook of Agriculture 1956. United States Department of Agriculture. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Burmester, B. R, 1972. “Further Research on the Control of Marek’s Disease.” Avian 

Diseases. 16: 187-91. 

Byerly, T.C., 1976. “Changes in Animal Science.” Agricultural History. 50: 258-274.

Coppock, Carl E., 2002. “Feeding and Managing High-Yielding Dairy Cows—the American 

Experience,” in Recent Developments in Ruminant Nutrition 4, ed. by P.C. Garnsworthy and J. 

Wiseman, 539-54. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, U.K. 

Corah, L. R., 2008. “ASAS Centennial Paper: Development of a Corn-based Beef Industry.” 

Journal of Animal Science. 86: 3635-3640.

Corey, Beverly, 1990. "Bovine Growth Hormone: Harmless for Humans. FDA Consumer. 24:

17-18.

Fajt, Virginia R., 2007 “Regulation of Drugs Used in Feedlot Diets.” Veterinary Clinics Food 

Animal Practice. 23: 299-307.

Ferrier, Peyton and Lamb, Russell, 2007. "Government Regulation and Quality in the US Beef 

Market." Food Policy. 32: 84-97. 

Flake, Oliver L. and Patterson, Paul M. 1999. "Health, Food Safety and Meat Demand." Paper 

Presented at AAEA Annual Meetings, Nashville, TN.

Friedberger, Mark, 1994. "Cattlemen, Consumers, and Beef,” Environmental History Review, 

42: 37-57.

Grandin, Temple, 2001. "Welfare of Cattle During Slaughter and the Prevention of 

Nonambulatory (downer) Cattle." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 219: 

1369-97. 

Grandin, Temple. 2006. "Progress and Challenges in Animal Handling and Slaughter in the 

US." Applied Animal Behavior Science. 100: 129-39.

Guither, Harold D., 1998. Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Movement. 

University of Illinois Press, Carbondale, Il.

Henlein, Paul Charles, 1959. Cattle Kingdom in the Ohio Valley, 1783-1860. University of 

Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY.

Hudson, John C., 1994. Making the Corn Belt: A Geographical History of Middle-Western 

Agriculture. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
27

Hurt, R. Douglas, 2002. American Agriculture: A Brief History. Purdue University Press, West 

Lafayette, IN.

Hutson, Cecil Kirk, 1994. “Texas Fever in Kansas, 1866-1930.” Agricultural History. 68: 74-104.

Juskevich, Judith C. and Guyer, C. Greg, 1990. "Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety 

Evolution." Science. 249: 875-84. 

Keeping Livestock Healthy: Yearbook of Agriculture, 1942. United States Department of 

Agriculture. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

Krimsky, Sheldon and Roger P. Wrubel, 1996. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment: 

Science, Policy, and Social Issues. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Il.

Loureiro, Maria L. and Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A Choice Experiment Model for Beef: What 

US Consumer Responses Tell Us About Relative Preferences for Food Safety, Countyof-Origin Labeling and Traceability." Food Policy. 32:496-514.

Lusk, Jayson L., Roosen, Jutta, and Fox John A., 2003. “Demand for Beef from Cattle 

Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of 

Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States." American Journal 

of Agricultural Economics. 85: 16-29.

MacDonald, James M., 2003. "Beef and Pork Packing Industries." Veterinary Clinics Food 

Animal Practice. 19: 419-443.

Marcus, Alan I, 1994. Cancer from Beef: DES, Federal Food Regulation, and Consumer 

Confidence. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

McGarity, Thomas O., 2005. "Federal Regulations of Mad Cow Disease Risks." Administrative 

Law Review. 57: 289-408.

Middleton, B. K. and Gibb, J. B., 1991. “An Overview of Beef Cattle Improvement Programs in 

the United States.” Journal of Animal Science. 69: 3861-3871.

Mintert, James, 2003. “Beef Feedlot Industry.” Veterinary Clinics Food Animal Practice. 19: 

387-395.

Molnar, Joseph J., Cummins, Keith A., and Nowak, Peter F. 1990. "Bovine Somatotropin: 

Biotechnology Product and Social Issue in the United States Dairy Industry," Journal of Dairy 

Science, 73: 3084-3093.

Morse, Deanne, 1996. "Impact of Environmental Regulations on Cattle Production." Journal of 

Animal Science. 74: 3103-3111.

Nall, Gary L. 1982. "The Cattle-Feeding Industry on the Texas High Plains," in Southwestern 

Agriculture: Pre-Columbian to Modern, ed. by Henry C. Dethloff and Irvin M. May, Jr., 106-115. 

Texas A & M University Press, College Station, TX. 
28

Olmstead, Alan R. and Rhode, Paul W., 2007. “Not on My Farm! Resistance to Bovine 

Tuberculosis Eradication in the United States.” Journal of Economic History. 67: 768-809.

Opie, John, 1993. Ogallala: Water for a Dry Land. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB.

Perry, T. W., 1992. “Feedlot Fattening in North America,” in Beef Cattle Production, ed. by 

Robert Jarrige and C. Béranger, 289-305. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Schlebecker, 1975. Whereby We Thrive: A History of American Farming, 1607-1972. Iowa 

State University Press, Ames, IA. 

Skaggs, Jimmie M. 1986. Prime Cut: Livestock Raising and Meat Packing in the United 

States,1607-1983. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, TX.

Smith, Theobald and F. L. Kilborne, 1893. "Investigations into the Nature, Causation, and 

Prevention of Texas or Southern Cattle Fever," United States Department of Agriculture. Bureau 

of Animal Industry, Bulletin no. 1, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C..

Stephens, A. Ray, 1982. "Cattle Raising in Texas Since World War II," in Southwestern 

Agriculture: Pre-Columbian to Modern, ed. by Henry C. Dethloff and Irvin M. May, Jr., 73-85. 

Texas A & University Press, College Station, TX. 

Sugarman, Carole. 1989. "Grocery Chains Refuse 'Engineered' Milk Products." Washington 

Post, August 24, A10.

Summons, Terry G., 1968. “Animal Feed Additives, 1940-1966." Agricultural History. 42: 305-

313.

Wiener, Jonathan B. and Rogers, Michael D., 2002. “Comparing Precaution in the United 

States and Europe.” Journal of Risk Research. 5: 317-349.

William, R. L., 1986. “From Husbandry to Science: A Highly Significant Facet of Our Livestock 

Heritage.” Journal of Animal Science. 62: 1742-1758.

Wood, Charles Wood, 1980. “Science and Politics in the War on Cattle Diseases: The Kansas 

Experience, 1900-1940.” Agricultural History. 54: 82-92.

Zinn, S. A. and Bravo-Ureta, B. 1996. "The Effects of Bovine Somatotrophin on Dairy 

Production, Cow Health and Economics," in Progress in Dairy Science, ed. by C. J. C. Phillips, 

Cab International, Wallingford: U.K.
29

Historical perspective of the integration of animal agriculture

Ron Plain

University of Missouri-Columbia

There have been significant changes in United States (U.S.) livestock and poultry production 

methods and industry structure during the past few decades. These changes have led to 

increased efficiency and lower cost of production. Some people view these changes as 

uncompetitive and detrimental to the quality of farm life. In this paper, I briefly discuss seven 

major trends that have shaped U.S. animal agriculture:

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer and bigger operations

3. Specialized farms

4. Integration

5. Contracting

6. More efficiency

7. Shrinking footprint.

Expanding Production

The U.S. livestock and poultry industry has grown a great deal in the last 50 years. In 2009, 

U.S. milk production was 54% larger than in 1960 and U.S. beef production was up by 81%. 

U.S. pork production was 112% greater in 2009 than in 1960. These were small increases 

compared with poultry: U.S. turkey production has grown by 595% since 1960, while broiler 

production has increased 719%. 

There are three key reasons for this growth. First, the U.S. population increases by nearly 1% 

per year. There were 70% more people living in the U.S. in 2009 than in 1960. Second, per 

capita meat consumption has increased. The average American consumed 28% more meat in 

2009 than in 1960. Third, U.S. meat exports are increasing. In 1960, the U.S. exported 

161,306 tons of meat; while in 2009, the amount of meat exported was 6.7 million tons. 

Fewer and Bigger Operations

The number of farms in the U.S. is steadily declining. According to the Census of Agriculture, 

the U.S. had 6.8 million farms in 1935, but only 2.2 million in 2009. The number of farms raising 

livestock and poultry is declining at a faster rate than the total number of farms. Since meat 

production is increasing and the number of farms with livestock is declining, it follows that 

production per farm is increasing.

In 1986 there were more than one million U.S. farms that had beef cows. In 2009, 753,000 

farms had beef cows. During this period the average beef cow inventory increased from 33.3 to 

42.1 cows per farm. The change was much more dramatic for other species. In 1965, the 

number of U.S. farms raising hogs exceeded one million with an average inventory of 47.8 head 

per hog farm. Last year, only 71,450 farms raised hogs and the average inventory per hog farm 

was 921 head. In 1974 over 470,000 U.S. farms had milk cows with an average inventory of 24 
30

cows per farm. In 2009, 65,000 farms had milk cows and the average inventory per farm was 

144 head. In 1935, 5.8 million farms raised chickens, and in 2007 that number was 178,283. 

Why are farms becoming fewer and getting larger? First, farm prices have not kept up with the 

rate of inflation. As Table 1 shows, since 1960 the deflated prices of meat animals have 

declined by more than half. 

Table 1 Percentage Change in Nominal and Deflated Prices, 1960-2009

% change % change

Commodity nominal price deflated price

Slaughter steers +219.2% -56%

Milk +276.2% -48%

Hogs +122.2% -69%

Eggs +131.4% -68%

Broilers +179.9% -61%

Turkeys + 86.7% -74%

Sources: USDA/ERS, Red Meat Yearbook and “Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Situation and 

Outlook”

Since livestock prices have failed to keep up with inflation, livestock producers have two basic 

choices: live on less money year after year, or raise more animals. 

Another reason livestock farms have gotten bigger is economies of size. In general, bigger 

farms can buy cheaper, sell higher, and are more efficient. For example, US Department of 

Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS) data indicate that large sow 

operations average 31% more pigs (2.32 head) per litter than the smallest operations. Much of 

the efficiency gain comes from labor specialization. Large operations find it much easier to 

match worker skills and wages to job requirements. On small farms, the owner-operators have 

to make complex management decisions even though they spend much of their time doing 

menial labor. 

Specialized Farms

In the past, most U.S. farms were diversified and produced more than one product. Today, 

many farms are specialized and market only one commodity. As Table 2 shows, in 1950 hogs 

could be found on more than half of the farms in America, dairy cows on two-thirds of U.S. 

farms, and both beef cattle and chickens on three out of four U.S. farms. The latest Census of 

Agriculture found that in 2007 only one-third of U.S. farms raised beef cattle while hogs, dairy 

and chickens were found on fewer than 10% of America’s farms. Although not as dramatic, the 

trend towards specialization is also occurring on crop farms (Table 3). The percentage of farms 

marketing corn, wheat, cotton or tobacco in 2007 was less than half of the percentage of those 

type farms in 1964.
31

Table 2 Portion of All U.S. Farms with Livestock

1950 1964 1978 1992 2007

Sheep 6.0% 7.4% 3.6% 4.2% 3.8%

Beef 75.5% 72.3% 38.5% 41.7% 34.7%

Hogs 56.0% 34.2% 18.0% 9.9% 3.4%

Dairy 67.8% 35.9% 12.6% 8.1% 3.2%

Chickens 78.3% 38.3% 9.7% 4.6% 6.6%

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture (various years)

Table 3 Portion of All U.S. Farms Marketing Crops

1964 1974 1992 2002 2007

Corn 43.8% 31.9% 26.2% 16.4% 15.8%

Wheat 23.4% 19.9% 15.2% 8.0% 7.3%

Soybeans 17.7% 22.8% 19.8% 14.9% 12.7%

Cotton 10.3% 1.7% 1.8% 1.2% 0.8%

Tobacco 10.5% 8.0% 6.5% 2.7% 0.7%

Orchards 7.1% 4.6% 6.0% 5.3% 5.3%

Vegetables 4.2% 3.4% 3.2% 2.6% 3.1%

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture (various years)

Why are farms specializing? Although specialization usually leads to greater year-to-year 

fluctuation in profits, it increases efficiency and lowers cost of production thereby enhancing 

long-term profits. One cannot learn to do 50 things as well as one can learn to do 10 things.

Integration

In the production of America’s food, fertilizer feeds crops, which feed animals, which become 

meat, which becomes food for people. Vertical integration brings together different stages of 

the production/marketing process under common ownership. Traditionally, animal agriculture 

integrated feed production with raising animals. Modern livestock and poultry operations are 

less likely to raise their feed than in the past and more likely to integrate production and 

processing. More than 90% of broilers are raised by firms that are also chicken processors. 

According to surveys conducted by Glenn Grimes at the University of Missouri, hog packers 

raised 6.4% of U.S. hogs in 1994 and 27% in 2006.

Why the move to combining animal production and processing in common ownership? There 

are a number of advantages of being a producer-packer. The profitability of livestock production 

and the profitability of meat processing tend to be counter cyclical. When hog inventories are 

low, hog production tends to be profitable and pork processing unprofitable. A firm that both 

produces and slaughters a species of animal is likely to have less year-to-year fluctuation in net 

income than firms that only raise that species or only slaughter it. The other key advantage of 

being a producer-packer is the ability to control the quantity and quality of the animals being 

slaughtered. An integrated producer-processor has greater opportunity for quality control and to 

provide consumers with information about the meat they eat than processors who buy animals 

from a large number of producers. Traceability is easier in an integrated firm. 
32

The disadvantages of integrating animal production with meat processing include the high 

investment cost, the complexity of managing distinctly different businesses, and the lack of 

flexibility in production flows.

Contracting

The use of production contracts and marketing contracts became common in animal agriculture 

in the second half of the twentieth century. More than 90% of broilers and nearly half of hogs 

are raised under a production contract. With animal production contracts, one person/firm (the 

contractor) owns the animals and another person/firm (the grower) owns the facilities where the 

animals are raised. The animal owner typically provides all feed, pharmaceuticals and hauling 

while the facility owner typically provides utilities and labor for care of the animals. Benefits of 

contract production for the contractor (animal owner) include lower capital requirements, lower 

site risks, and potentially less production risk. Benefits to the grower (facility owner) include 

lower capital requirements, less market (price) risk and potentially less production risk. 

Production contracts have proved to be popular with bankers, and many lenders have offered 

more favorable financing to growers than to independent producers.

Traditionally, livestock producers have made marketing decisions when the animals were ready 

for slaughter and the animals were sold on the spot market. In the case of hogs, 62% of 

barrows and gilts were sold on the spot market in 1994 (Grimes 2009). Only 7% of barrows and 

gilts were sold on the spot market in 2009. Today, two-thirds of market hogs are sold under a 

marketing contract. With a marketing contract, the producer has a binding agreement to sell the 

animals when ready for slaughter to a specific processor. Why the shift to marketing contracts? 

Advantages for the producer include lower transaction costs, assured shackle space, and in 

many cases, higher or more stable prices. Advantages of marketing contracts for the processor 

include lower transaction costs, a consistent supply of animals of known quality, and in many 

cases a better quality animal.

More Efficiency

U.S. animal agriculture is becoming more efficient. From 1960 to 2009, annual beef production 

per cow increased by 73%. Milk production per cow increased by 193% and pork production 

per sow increased 177%. More production per animal is one of the major reasons that market 

prices have not risen as fast as the rate of inflation. Why is animal agriculture steadily 

becoming more efficient? Two primary reasons: first, knowledge accumulates; second, new 

technology.

Shrinking Footprint

The environmental impact per ton of meat produced is dropping fast, thanks largely to indoor 

production. In 1960 fewer than 10% of U.S. hogs lived indoors. In 2006, 94% of hogs lived 

their lives indoors (Lawrence and Grimes, 2007). The movement away from outdoor production 

has caused a dramatic reduction in soil erosion and runoff of manure into streams and rivers. 

Being able to moderate of the extremes of weather and to control certain diseases and 

parasites have brought healthier animals, less death loss and improved feed conversion. U.S. 

pork production is growing three times as fast as hog feed consumption and hog manure 

production.
33

The aforementioned changes in animal production also have had a dramatic impact on the 

economics of the meat business. From 1960 to 2009, the deflated retail price of beef declined 

by 27%, the deflated price of pork declined by 31%, the deflated price of chicken in stores 

dropped 58% and turkey was down 65%. In 1970, the average American spent 4.2% of their 

disposable income buying meat and acquired an average of 194 pounds of meat. In 2009, the 

average American spent only 1.61% of their disposable income to buy 210 pounds of meat. 

Modern animal agriculture offers consumers more for less. 

References

Lawrence, John and Glenn Grimes, 2006. “Production and Marketing Characteristics of U.S. 

Pork Producers.” Department of Agricultural Economics Working Paper No. AEWP 2007-5, 

University of Missouri, 2007.

Grimes, Glenn and Ron Plain, 2009. “U.S. Hog Marketing Contract Study,” Department of 

Agricultural Economics Working Paper No. AEWP 2009-1, University of Missouri, January. 

USDA/ERS, “Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook,” various years

USDA/ERS, Red Meat Yearbook, 2006.

USDA/NASS, “Census of Agriculture,” various years

USDA/NASS, “Farms, Land in Farms and Livestock Operations.” February, 2010. 

USDA/NASS, “Quarterly Hogs and Pigs” March 26, 2010.
34

Consumer trust in the U.S. food system:

Implications for communication and regulation

Stephen G. Sapp

Iowa State University

Overview of the U.S. Food System

1. The U.S. food system provides a large quantity of safe, wholesome, and relatively 

inexpensive food to hundreds of millions of persons.

2. This system faces real and perceived challenges to its credibility arising from:

a. More complex food chains.

b. More complex food processing.

c. More food imports.

d. More direct threats to its safety.

3. These challenges are further complicated by the fact that U.S. consumers want to be 

actively involved in making food-related policy, but most are geographically and 

conceptually far removed from the food system.

a. Most persons live off the farm.

b. Most persons do not know how food is produced, processed, and distributed.

The Sociological Problem

1. Therefore, we have a critical societal system that faces significant challenges arising 

from its size, structure, complexity, and direct threats to it, and which

2. Is guided in part by citizens with little knowledge about it.

3. This mismatch requires that citizens place much trust in representatives of the U.S. food 

system.

Two sociological questions: 

1. How can food system representatives communicate with the public to instill trust?

2. How can the United States regulate its food system and still have it work effectively in 

a large, complex society?

Question #1: Communication: The Risk Communication Trilemma

I take some liberty with the English language to describe three horns to the dilemma of 

communicating effectively about food safety hazards.
35

Horn #1: Let the experts decide.

Approach

Because most citizens do not understand the great complexity of the U.S. food system, they 

might be best off leaving decisions to the experts. That is, it might be best to “Let science be 

the guide for policy regarding the U.S. food system.”

Assessment of Approach #1

This approach has some advantages because consumers are: 1) ignorant, 2) untrusting, and 3) 

skeptical.

Note that: 

1. We all are ignorant because we cannot help but be in a complex world.

2. We all to some extent are untrusting. Some distrust is desirable because a viable 

democracy requires that citizens challenge, probe, ask questions.

3. We all are skeptical. Think of it this way: After about 200,000 years of existence, those 

of us on this planet are the children of those who responded to potential dangers; the 

humans who were not skeptical did not live long enough to have children!

Too often, representatives of the U.S. food system assume that ignorant, skeptical, untrusting 

consumers are irrational, irresponsible, and unreasonable ones. Relating to consumers in this 

manner is not an effective way to instill trust. In a democracy, all citizens are allowed by law to 

participate in policy formation.

Summary

Horn #1 cannot easily be resolved because consumers cannot and should not be asked to 

leave policy decisions about the food system entirely in the hands of a few experts.

Horn #2: Educate consumers. 

Approach

Provide consumers with the facts about food safety.

Assessment of Approach #2

This approach appeals to our sense of shared democracy. It is without doubt a necessary 

component of risk communication.

But it has several limitations: 

1. The paradox of democracy: There are lots of cooks in the kitchen and experts disagree.
36

2. All technologies are flawed and all have negative consequences for some segments of 

the population. Thus, "educating" consumers means they will hear both favorable and 

unfavorable comments about any food or procedure for processing and delivering food 

to their grocery. When limitations are made public, consumers become skeptical 

because in the short run, negative information carries disproportionate weight.

3. Therefore, educating consumers can actually decrease trust rather than increase it!

Therefore, although education is a necessary component of risk communication, it is not 

sufficient to instill trust.

Summary

Horn #2 cannot easily be resolved because negative information has disproportionate weight.

Horn #3: Blame the media. 

Approach

Blame the media for unnecessarily creating undue concerns, particularly in response to 

expressed concerns that are either trivial or have little scientific merit.

Assessment of Approach #3

1. This approach has intuitive appeal because media reports “amplify” negative 

information.

2. It sometimes can seem unreasonable to have to respond to media reports on statements 

that have little scientific merit.

3. However, one must accept that:

a. The media has a job to do.

b. The media has ethical responsibilities to report both sides.

c. Most of the time, media representatives act responsibly.

4. Blaming the media does not instill trust.

Summary

Horn #3 cannot easily be resolved because the democracy we desire requires protection of free 

speech and an actively involved press.
37

The Risk Communication: The Diffusion of Innovations Approach 

Approach

1. This approach has been well known and well researched for more than 50 years.

2. It has been implemented successfully in thousands of applications worldwide for many 

years.

3. The approach involves:

a. Identifying opinion leaders, who are trusted, respected third-party persons or 

organizations.

b. Obtaining endorsements from opinion leaders.

Assessment of the Diffusion of Innovations Approach

This approach offers a solution to the risk communication trilemma. Opinion leaders beat the 

trilemma by instilling trust upon representatives of the societal system. Through their 

endorsements as respected outside agencies, they “deem” representatives to be trustworthy.

This approach works, but begs the questions:

1. What are the key determinants of public trust in the U.S. food system?

2. What actions can institutional actors, whether established or new, large or small, take to 

gain and retain public trust?

Previous Studies on Risk Communication

Here are just some of the variables used to explain consumer trust in the U.S. food system: 

perceived risks stigma

complexity alienation

age perceived benefits

familiarity relative advantage

value similarity sex and gender

anomie compatibility

source credibility trialability

observability race and ethnicity

income prior exposure

media attention education.....

The Sociological Approach

Of course, a simpler model would be preferable! We seek a model that:

1. explains much of the variance in trust,
38

2. with just a few variables,

3. that are easily understood, and is 

4. actionable.

The Consumer Trust Model (Center for Food Integrity)

The Consumer Trust Model posits that trust can be explained by just two key variables: 

competence and confidence. Competence is an assessment that a firm or organization has the 

skills, experience, and expertise to carry out its tasks effectively. Confidence is an assessment 

by the consumer that a firm or organization will act with integrity and honesty—that it will do the 

right thing. In this application, the model seeks to explain consumer trust in the U.S. food 

system, which is posited to lead to compliance with recommendations by representatives of this 

system regarding proper regulation of it.

Testing the Consumer Trust Model

In 2007, 2008, and 2009 the Center for Food Integrity conducted nationwide surveys to 

investigate the viability of the Consumer Trust Model. A reference to the academic work on this 

model is provided below.

The studies examined the efficacy of the Consumer Trust Model across five areas of the U.S. 

food system: food safety, nutrition, worker care, environmental protection, and animal welfare. 

They evaluated the model for 7-9 pertinent representatives of the food system (e.g., producers, 

processors, grocers, regulators, restaurants, advocacy groups) within each of the five areas. 

For the 2007 study alone, this approach yielded 41 tests of the model.

The results indicated that the model:

1. explains much of the variance in trust,

2. with just a few variables,

3. that are easily understood,

4. and actionable.

Confidence is the key driver of consumer trust in the U.S. food system. On average, confidence 

outweighed competence by a factor of 3 to 1 in explaining consumer trust. Clearly, consumers 

were driven more by their assessments of the honesty and integrity of food safety 

representatives than their assessments of their skills and expertise.

These results were replicated in 2009 on another topic of public controversy (i.e., building 

additional high voltage power lines).
39

Implications of the Findings

1. Communicating about the competence of food system representatives is important for 

gaining and maintaining consumer trust.

2. Even more important for gaining and maintaining consumer trust is instilling confidence 

in food system representatives.

3. Future research needs to identify specific actions that reflect competence and instill 

confidence.

Question #2: Policy Issues for the U.S. Food System

Policy Issues Related to the Consumer Trust Model

1. Opinion leaders in the U.S. food system (USDA, FDA, EPA, etc.) typically ask for more 

regulations as a means of instilling trust.

2. The self-interest of maintaining consumer trust infers industry encouragement and 

support for recommendations offered by opinion leaders.

3. Therefore, maintaining trust often infers support for more regulation of the food system!

This conclusion seems reasonable. Consider, however, the potential negative consequences 

for small and medium size food companies of supporting greater legislation.

Economies of Scale 

1. Conforming with regulations requires a burden of time and expertise.

2. These burdens weigh less heavily upon large firms compared with small and medium 

size firms.

3. Therefore: The greater the regulation, the greater the advantage for larger firms.

Two-Edged Sword 

1. New regulations bring about greater safety, but new regulations might bring about 

greater industry control by a few large firms.

2. Small and medium size firms cannot oppose new regulations for fear of appearing to be 

“anti-safety.”

3. Government agencies might appear to endorse favoritism if they set different regulations 

for different size firms.
40

4. Smaller firms might find it difficult to beat the “trilemma” by relying upon the diffusion of 

innovations approach because the actions of opinion leaders tend to create policies that 

create disproportionate burden on these firms.

5. Therefore, smaller firms must rely more on changing institutional approaches as a 

means to instilling consumer trust in them as representatives of the U.S. food system.

The Policy Dilemma

The U.S. food system faces a policy dilemma related to instituting regulations intended to bring 

about greater food safety.

Horn #1: Institute More Regulations and Enforcement of Regulations

This approach might be needed to maintain proper functioning of the highly critical and complex 

U.S. food system.

Horn #2: Encourage Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Food System

Instituting more regulations often places disproportionate financial and managerial burdens on 

smaller firms, which might hinder entrepreneurship and innovativeness in the U.S. food system.

Reference

Sapp, Stephen G., Charlie Arnot, James Fallon, Terry Fleck, David Soorholtz, Matt SuttonVermeulen, and Jannette J. H. Wilson. 2009. Consumer Trust in the U.S. Food System: An 

Examination of the Recreancy Theorem. Rural Sociology 74: 525-545.
41

Redefining sustainability: Ethically grounded, scientifically verified, 

and economically viable

W. Ray Stricklin

University of Maryland 

Introduction and Overview

Use of the term “sustainable” is very much in vogue today. One hears the term used across a 

range of topics from economic development to politics. The word sustainable has at its root 

meaning the concept of sustenance, i.e., nourishment. This presentation will focus specifically 

on sustainability of animal agriculture. Discussions about defining agricultural sustainability 

have embraced a number of issues and viewpoints including: (1) consideration of impact on 

future generations, (2) having the least impact on nature, (3) ensuring that food production and 

distribution keeps pace with population growth, (4) contributing to positive economic 

development, and finally, (5) “that which lasts.”

This presentation will tend to focus on animal agricultural systems that will last in coming years. 

Specifically, the question presented herein asks, “In terms of being sustainable, which housing 

systems and husbandry practices of today will be in place in American animal agriculture some 

50 to 75 years from now”? It is suggested that if one knew the answer to this question, then one 

could today more easily and accurately define sustainable animal agriculture. Ultimately, 

economics, science, and ethics are each likely to play a significant role in determining which 

animal agriculture practices will be practiced in the latter half of this century. However, ethics 

may prove to be a major driving force in defining sustainable animal agriculture over the coming 

decades. Specifically, polls repeatedly indicate that the majority of the public wishes to continue 

to consume animal products, but these same polls indicate that the public wants assurance that 

animals are treated in an appropriate manner. The public’s view of what is appropriate and 

ethical treatment of animals versus what some persons in animal agriculture consider to be 

appropriate treatment is currently in conflict. Resolution of this difference is most likely to result 

in some current animal agricultural practices ultimately proving to not be sustainable over 

extended decades.

Some critics contend that animals should be eliminated as a food source. Attempts at 

structuring this argument tend to build from at least two contentions. First, it is biologically 

inefficient to use animals in the production of food. Second, animal agriculture is inherently 

cruel; thus, it is unethical and the use of animals should be gradually phased out through what 

has been referred to as “animal liberation.” This presentation is not an attempt to address either 

of these issues in detail. However, the manner in which the majority of persons in the future 

come to view these issues is likely to be critical in determining which practices of animal 

agriculture prove to be sustainable. Therefore, a brief comment is included about each of these 

two points. 

Natural ecosystems involve a balance of both plant and animal life. Both plants and animals 

exist in natural systems quite simply because it is optimally biologically efficient to have both 

plants and animals in the utilization of the resources available in a balanced ecosystem. Thus, 
42

one should argue that an optimal animal agriculture involves some balance and utilization of 

both plants and animals. Regarding the liberation of animals through their gradual elimination, 

one could argue that preventing animals from living as a means of preventing animal suffering is 

not altogether in the best interest of the animals involved. A more appropriate goal from the 

viewpoint of serving animal interests would seem to be the pursuit of animal housing and 

management systems that provide a reasonable quality of life before the animal’s death. The 

polls that indicate the majority of persons wish to continue to consume animal products would 

tend to indicate a general public recognition that annihilation of food animals is not necessarily a 

preferred ethical standard over providing animals with proper treatment.

Finally, a theoretical discussion of animal agriculture sustainability is presented. A primary 

contention is that the animal agricultural systems that will last are ones that involve a balanced 

ecosystem built on a bioethical foundation. This foundation gives an appropriate balance in 

consideration to the interests of animals, humans, and the environment. Additionally, it is 

suggested that democracy may provide the optimal approach to attaining sustainability.

The Role of Science and Ethics

Science and technology brought forth revolutionary change in animal agriculture during the last 

half of the past century. The unit of food produced (milk, meat, eggs, etc.) per animal today is 

several fold greater than it was before 1950. This increase through technological advances has 

produced considerable positive benefits in that a large number of persons have been removed 

from a life of stoop or hand labor. Additionally, most Americans today have ready access to 

relatively cheap food. Thus, scientific research has played an important role in past 

development of animal agriculture and likely will continue to play an important role in the future 

of animal agriculture. However, the dramatic increase in the amount food generated per 

individual animal has brought forth new problems. Specifically, some animals (laying hens, highproducing dairy cows, etc.) are metabolically challenged to point where bones become leached 

of calcium, problems with feet or legs develop, rebreeding is a problem, etc. Additionally, large 

scale, intensive confinement farming systems have brought about questions related to animal 

welfare (confinement space, social isolation, etc.), the continuing decrease of small farms and 

supporting small towns, and environmental issues such as ground water pollution, etc. 

A common contention today among some advocates of animal agriculture in addressing animal 

welfare and these related topics is that, “Science alone should be the basis for addressing these 

issues.” I strongly disagree. Science should absolutely play a strong role. Additionally, a very 

strong argument can be made regarding the need for additional research funding in animal 

welfare and similar topics affecting animal agriculture today. However, science is a human 

endeavor that primarily answers questions related to, “What is?” Animal welfare ultimately 

poses questions involving, “What ought to be?” For example, using traditional methodologies of 

science, researchers can (and have) defined the amount of space required for a hen to stand, 

turn around, stretch her wings, perform certain behaviors such as mating, flying, etc. However, 

science cannot provide answers to the question of what behaviors a hen “ought to” be able to 

perform. Ethics is the human endeavor that has traditionally been said to deal with questions 

related to what ought to be. Ultimately, when one proposes an answer to the question of 

whether or not a hen ought to be able to perform a specific behavior, one is engaging in making 

an ethical statement even if that person is a scientist. Scientists do, and should, engage in such 

discussions. However, these discussions should not be left to scientists alone. Nor should 
43

scientists remain ignorant of the fact that they have entered the realm of ethics when they 

engage in statements about how animals “ought to” be treated.

One of the reasons for the contention that science alone should be used is possibly related to 

the use of the term science today becoming basically a synonym for objectivity. Of course one 

should address welfare and related questions objectively. However, one can and should also 

address what “ought to be” type questions (i.e., ethical questions) objectively. In too many 

instances, scientists state positions about what ought to be while contending that the position 

they have presented is one of science alone. Again, I would argue that scientists should engage 

in discussions involving ethics. In fact, to avoid doing so is impossible. But to state again, 

scientists (and others) should recognize that when they have moved from making statements 

about “what is” to making statements about “what ought to be” they have made a transition from 

science to ethics. Accordingly, when this transition is made, one should attempt to do so with 

some knowledge and awareness of an obligation to follow some of the basic principles 

associated with appropriately engaging in making sound, objective ethical statements.

If science and ethics both objectively address the same question, there ultimately should be 

some convergence of the two approaches. In fact, a well constructed ethical argument should 

be one that involves science. Specifically, the ethical position that is most consistent and most 

strongly grounded in current scientific knowledge and theory possibly could (and should) prove 

to be the strongest---and the one most likely to last, i.e., be sustainable.

Economic Trends and Issues

Economic viability is of course essential for sustainability in a free market system. Today, the 

profit margin for animal food products at the farm level is narrow, in some instances one could 

say near microscopic. The narrow profit margin at times has turned to red and contributed to 

the dramatic decrease in the total number of farm units. Another economic factor with an ethical 

implication is that cheap labor has historically (and currently) been a tradition in agriculture. Yet, 

of each dollar spent at the supermarket counter for food, almost forty cents goes to labor, mostly 

associated with processing after the product leaves the farm. Even cheaper labor is available 

today in China and other Southeast Asian countries, South America, and other parts of the 

world. In a global economy, issues such as the environment and animal welfare could combine 

with the availability of cheap labor to push food animal production systems outside the United 

States (U.S.) borders. 

Some of the following economically related states and changes may come about in the coming 

decades. First, some form of animal agriculture will most certainly continue to exist in the U.S., 

but there will likely be an offshore trend. Some trends in the amount of production and even 

systems of animal food production will likely prove to be unsustainable. For example, the current 

rate of increase in milk production per cow, some stall systems of housing, etc. are most likely 

to prove unsustainable. Biotechnology offers many new possibilities including some promise of 

bioengineered animal food products independent of the living animal. If these new technologies 

prove technologically possible and economically feasible, then they could prove to be the 

greatest threat to the sustainability of animal agriculture as it is known today---because they will 

tend to eliminate the animal from the system. We may come to know milk without the cow, eggs 

without the hen---even beef without the steer. Technologically, each of these already has some 

early research stage basis. Economically, were these to become technologically practicable, 
44

each would likely be implemented on some scale. Ethically, one could argue that were these 

practices to come about, a number of associated negative consequences would result, not the 

least of which would be that a sizable aspect of animal agriculture would become unsustainable, 

eliminating both some animal life and some agricultural livelihood.

Theory of Sustainability

Adams (2006) presented a theory of sustainable development based on a Boolean model 

(Figure 1). His model involved the overlapping issues of social, economic and environmental 

factors. He contended that the overlap of social interests with the environment must be 

bearable. The social and economic overlap should be equitable. The economic and 

environment overlap should be viable. Finally, sustainability was said to be attained where the 

model overlapped in terms of each: bearable, equitable and viable.

Figure 1. Theoretical Model of Sustainable Development. (Adams, W.M. 2006. The Future 

of Sustainability: Rethinking Environment and Development in the Twentyfirst Century. 

Report to the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting. 2031 Jan 2006. www.iucn.org).

Suggested herein is a proposal that a theoretical model of sustainable animal agriculture might 

be developed by adopting some concepts from Adams’ model as presented in Figure 2. 

Bioethics could be used in place of Environment. Bioethics in this instance could be considered 

to involve: (1) food-animals, (2) the environment, and (3) issues associated with the farm 

community, such as the trend toward the demise of small farms. In Figure 2, sustainable animal 

agriculture is thus represented by the area common to the three circles; Social, Economic and 

Bioethics. And, the overlap of Social and Bioethics represents those practices considered 

acceptable. The Social and Economics overlap should be equitable. Finally, the interface of 

Economics and Bioethics must overlap viably for sustainability to occur.
45

Figure 2. Proposed theoretical model for Sustainable Animal Agriculture.

A question that this model would seem to present is, “What actions would increase the 

probability of attaining sustainable animal agriculture?” That is, what actions would result in an 

increase in the area of the model labeled as “sustainable” in Figure 2? One could argue that the 

area representing social and bioethics overlap is likely to increase in coming years. Public 

concern about animal welfare and the environment is likely to grow. Thus, the direction of the 

shift could either increase or decrease the probability of sustainability of aspects of animal 

agriculture. In terms of sustainability of animal agriculture overall, the most critical question may 

be, “What direction will the economic factors shift?” Those animal production systems and units 

that shift toward meeting the social and bioethical viable and acceptable categories are likely to 

be the animal production systems that most likely prove to be sustainable over decades. 
46

Conclusion

To be sustainable long term, animal production systems and units must have consumer support 

and confidence. An animal agriculture that is not considered bioethical will not prove to be 

sustainable over an extended number of years. To gain public support and confidence, there 

must be public input. Therefore, an animal agriculture that makes decisions by involving an 

appropriate balance of opinion from the public through a democratic process could ultimately 

prove to include those animal agriculture systems and units that last, i.e., animal agriculture that 

is sustainable.
47

Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future 

food-animal systems

Charlie Arnot

Center for Food Integrity

Paper not provided. See power point section for slides.
48

Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future 

food-animal systems

Janet Riley

American Meat Institute

Paper not provided. See power point section for slides.
49

Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future 

food-animal systems

Animal agriculture and crop production -

partnership in modern agriculture 

Jay Vroom

CropLife America

Grand Challenges for Food and Agriculture

Today’s grand challenges for agriculture may appear to come from sensationalized headlines 

that circulate emotive misinformation to attract the attention of an information-hungry, but foodsatiated, American demography. Issues including animal welfare, the clean energy myth, the 

global food crisis and the cheap cost of food continue to be serious topics but they are repackaged to abound in opinion journalism, the new method of selling magazines. The real 

critical issues facing agriculture include delivery of human health care, reduction in hunger, and 

increasing energy supply, all in a sustainable manner with minimal negative impact on the 

environment (CAST, 2010). As Dr. Norman Borlaug stated in the preface to the CAST paper, 

“You have to be able to communicate. Research information must be applied in order to meet 

human needs.” The critical issues require science-based, cross-cutting, and multi-disciplinary 

solutions. The United Nations (U.N.) predicts world population will exceed 9 billion by midcentury and has called for a 100 % increase in world food production by 2050 (U.N., 2007). 

According to the U.N., this doubled food requirement must come from virtually the same land 

area as today. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) further states that 70 % of 

this additional food must come from the use of new and existing agricultural technologies (U. N., 

FAO, 2002). Therefore, the need for innovation in modern agriculture through new technologies, 

and communication toward adoption and acceptance, is essential for the future of citizens, 

communities and natural resources.

The grand societal challenges of the future will not be overcome unless we invest in viable food 

and agricultural research, extension and education programs. New innovation will not be 

achieved without increased public funding for research. Federal funding for food and 

agricultural research, extension and education represents a top national priority and a 

necessary long-term national commitment. Research investments are demonstrated to yield 

tremendous returns, according to a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic 

Research Service (USDA, ERS) (2007) report that showed the average social rate of return to 

public investment in agricultural research is nearly 50 %. Research programs deliver not only 

highly valuable technologies at low cost, but most importantly, research programs train young 

scientists of the future.

The bottom line is that twenty-first century solutions will require adoption of many effective 

technologies without discrimination, in recognition of the importance of community and regional 

differences in agricultural production practices, food chain demands and consumer views. 

CropLife America (CLA) represents the crop protection industry that provides plant science 
50

solutions for crop production. Our partnership with animal agriculture is essential to our 

industry. The dynamic face of agriculture must include an array of production methods that 

benefits farmers and consumers worldwide. We cannot afford to cherry pick technologies when 

we are striving to enhance quality of life and health for mankind, based on more affordable and 

sustainable supplies of food, feed, fiber, fuel and industrial products.

A Synergistic Relationship

The basis of modern agriculture is the synergistic relationship between animal agriculture and 

crop production. The livestock and crop production sectors have increased in value in a nearly 

parallel manner since 1970, to the 2010 estimated annual values of nearly $140 billion for 

livestock production and $160 billion for crop production (USDA, ERS, 2010a). American 

soybean producers have long-recognized that livestock and poultry consume nearly 95% of the 

U. S. soybean crop (United Soybean Board, 2010). Similarly, livestock and poultry consume at 

least 80% of the U.S. corn crop. Across all grains (barley, corn, grain sorghum, and oats), the 

ERS reports that in 2008-2009, 43% of grains produced were used as feed for livestock and 

poultry, whereas 41% went to food and fuel (USDA, ERS, 2010b). This was a shift from 2004-

2005 when 52% went to feed and 23% went to food and fuel. The current increased use of 

grains in the U. S. for food and fuel presumably reflects the increased use of corn for ethanol 

production. One of the challenges the livestock and crop production sectors must resolve is to 

co-exist with the shifting markets for grains and still enhance the synergy between the sectors 

that has contributed to our historical successes for decades.

Trends in Society: Understanding “Crop Protection” 

There is no doubt that today’s consumers do not understand food production but they have 

been increasingly more aware and opinionated about nutrition, health and foods. Agriculture 

must be cognizant of the trends in society and respond proactively with information that inspires 

Americans to know the facts about food production. 

CropLife America recently conducted research to better understand consumers’ reactions to the 

benefits of the agricultural pesticide industry. An independent research firm conducted an 

extensive and far-reaching opinion poll. The survey reached 1300 adults, a group that included 

informed Americans and special audiences. “Informed Americans” included 800 Americans 

who went to college, are aware of political issues, vote, read the news, and know the issues. 

The remaining 500 were from “Special Audiences” consisting of the top thought leaders and 

policy influencers. This included policy leaders, health experts and scientists. Misconceptions 

and negative responses were high by both groups for words such as “pesticides.” But both 

audiences were much more receptive to words and phrases such as “crop protection.” 

Research audiences were polled about their opinion of pesticides before and after introducing 

fact-based information and new messaging. Before the discussion, 55% of informed Americans 

and 61% of thought leaders favored the use of pesticides in agriculture. After introduction of 

new messaging, the percentages jumped to 81 and 78%, respectively. These results indicate 

that consumers respond to phrases and framing of your business and your industry, causing a 

key change in their understanding and receptivity.
51

Based on the research, four key new messages describe the crop protection industry. 

1. The crop protection industry plays an important role in modern agriculture. By supplying 

farmers with important crop inputs, we are helping farmers produce an affordable and 

sustainable supply of food to help feed a hungry world.

2. The technologies that go into modern agricultural practices are safe. We work closely 

with government agencies to ensure that farmers have access to the most modern, safe, 

and effective products. Scientific integrity is vital to modern agriculture and all products 

are tested rigorously before widespread use. When used according to the label and 

application instructions, these products can be used safely and responsibly.

3. Constant innovations in farming practices not only produce more, but they also help 

growers reduce their environmental footprint and make farming more sustainable.

Innovations make agriculture more productive, and therefore help prevent encroachment 

onto unfarmed land and preserve biodiversity.

4. The modern agricultural practices adopted by today’s farmers ensure that all inputs are 

used with care and only when required.

Regulatory Challenges: Impacting Livestock and Crop Production

Agriculture is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world. These regulations, 

whether it is the livestock, crop, animal health, meat and poultry or food industries, form the 

basis of one of the safest food supplies in the world, for which Americans spend less than 10% 

of their disposable income. The crop protection industry abides by the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which describes the rigorous, science-based, risk and benefit 

assessment for the registration of pesticides. Pesticides registered by the U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) are safe for humans, animals and the environment when used 

according to the label and application instructions. 

Today, growers and livestock producers are in a synergistic regulatory “cloud” that is 

aggressively threatening modern agricultural food production practices. Many of the 

environmental laws and regulations are being challenged as the EPA (EPA, 2010) responds to 

the impact and reactions of the legal system as well as the voices of non-governmental 

organizations. Some examples of the issues raised by the EPA since the fall of 2009 include a 

proposal on spray drift labeling language, a proposal on occupational risk assessment for farm 

workers, a request for public comment on a petition regarding the impact of crop protection on 

children of farm workers, and a proposal on disclosure of inert ingredients in crop protection 

products. In addition, the courts have decided that the EPA must issue National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act for pesticides 

applied on, over or near water which will affect mosquito control and aquatic weed control. In 

early June of 2010, the EPA published a draft NPDES permit for public comment within sixty 

days. Further, the courts decided that the EPA failed to consult with the U. S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service on risks to endangered species for pesticide 

registrations. 
52

CropLife America has established a proactive plan to meet these regulatory challenges. The 

goal of the CLA EcoRoadmapTM (CLA, 2010) is to have regulatory agencies implement a fair 

and credible risk assessment process that utilizes sound science and reliable data to affirm that 

pesticide products can be used safely in the environment and comply with applicable 

environmental laws. The CLA EcoRoadmapTM comprehensively addresses environmental 

issues, including clean water, clean air, spray drift, ecological risk assessment, and endangered 

species. Based on the EcoRoadmapTM and in unity with our friends and stakeholders in 

agriculture, CLA currently has several science, policy, governmental affairs and communications 

initiatives addressing the environmental issues that impact both livestock and crop production. 

Future Food Systems through Modern Agriculture: A Call to Action

Dr. Borlaug said “Now, more than ever, it is important for the general public to know the facts 

underlying the many agricultural issues influencing daily life.” (CAST, 2010.) CropLife America 

strongly believes that a proactive unified voice is needed for all sectors of agriculture to share 

the facts about the sustainability and benefits of modern agriculture in producing affordable, 

safe, healthful, and plentiful food. A new initiative is being planned to promote modern 

agriculture. Whereas terms such as “production agriculture,” or “corporate agriculture” are often 

used, “Modern Agriculture- Food for All” succinctly brands and summarizes our practices and 

beliefs. CropLife America resolves that agriculture must speak with one voice to Americans to 

share the benefits and facts about modern agriculture and food production.

References

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2010. Agricultural Productivity 

Strategies for the Future: Addressing U.S. and Global Challenges. Issue Paper 45. CAST, 

Ames, IA.

CropLife America. 2010. CLA EcoRoadMapTM. http://www.croplifeamerica.org/ecoroadmap. 

Accessed July 3, 2010.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. Accessed July 3, 

2010.

United Nations. 2007. World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. U.N. Population 

Division, NY.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. 2002. World Agriculture: toward 

2015/2030. Rome. Accessed 12/8/08. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf

United Soybean Board. 2010. Animal Agriculture Initiative. 

http://unitedsoybean.org/programs/animal_ag.aspx. Accessed July 3, 2010.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2007. Economic 

Returns to Public Agricultural Research. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eb10/eb10.pdf 

Accessed July 3, 2010.
53

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2010a. Value of 

Livestock and Crop Production, 1970-2010f. Farm Income and Costs: 2010 Farm Sector 

Income Forecast. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/nationalestimates.htm. 

Accessed July 3, 2010.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2010b. Feed Grains 

Data: Yearbook Tables. Table 3. Feed grains (corn, sorghum, barley, and oats): Supply and 

disappearance. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains/Table.asp?t=03. Accessed July 3, 

2010. 
54

Ethical and practical implications of food-animal agriculture

Paul Thompson

Michigan State University

See Appendix C for paper.
55

Panel: Different perceptions of sustainable agriculture

James R. (Tres) Bailey

Walmart

Paper and power point slides not provided.
56

Panel: Different perceptions of sustainable agriculture

Mike Morris

YUM Brands

Paper and power point slides not provided.
57

Panel: Different perceptions of sustainable agriculture

Bryan Dierlam

Cargill

Paper and power point slides not provided.
58

Panel: How can we move forward? The need for a 

collaborative vision

Jack Fisher

Ohio Farm Bureau

Paper not provided. See power point section for slides.
59

Panel: How can we move forward? The need for a 

collaborative vision

Chandler Goule 

National Farmers Union

To create a unified idea for America’s scientific, technological and agricultural future, it is critical 

to emphasize that all organizations involved reach toward a single vision. Our agricultural 

communities have changed significantly: in the 1950s fifteen percent of the U.S. population 

was, at the most, only one generation away from the family farm. Now, in 2010, most 

consumers have no direct connection to, or knowledge of, where their food comes from or how 

it arrives at their table. If we are to progress in a successful direction for collaboration, then 

education is key. Our endusers and consumers need to know about agricultural America and 

how their knowledge is the key to our success. 

With all movements there arise challenges. The challenge here is avoiding the weakening 

wedge between groups, organizations, and government. Agriculture is a victim of a “wedging” 

philosophy because of its connection with both internal and external groups. Often times this 

“wedging” is seen in the area of trade---pitting one commodity against another, preventing all of 

agriculture from mutually benefitting. If we are to achieve success then we must define a 

unilateral theory among all groups.

Coexistence is key. In order for this to be achieved, agricultural organizations across the board 

must realize that there is a place for everyone. We must all work together: conventional, 

organic, sustainable, small, and large producers need to make a pact that the importance is 

agricultural success for everyone. 

How are we to do this? By a strong collaborative effort. This year funding will be slightly less for 

the 2012 Farm Bill. Thus, it needs to be understood that all organizations and partnerships 

matter for the success of America’s agricultural future. It is important we work with our nutrition 

counterparts throughout the 2012 Farm Bill and educate the public on the importance of 

domestic food security. To secure the safest food supply to our nation, it is crucial to be a team. 

In conclusion, we must focus on working together, speaking out to consumers and the media 

about positive steps taken that are both healthy and environmentally friendly. To achieve 

success we must focus on finding a common ground within our own industry and being able to 

coexist with all sectors. The goal is to obtain an abundant, affordable, and safe food supply. 
60

Panel: How can we move forward? The need for a 

collaborative vision

Christine Bushway

Organic Trade Association

Paper not provided. See power point section for slides.
61

Panel: How can we move forward? The need for a 

collaborative vision

Moving animal welfare forward in the beef industry

 

Joseph M. Stookey1 and Dan Thomson2

1University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK

2Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

Co-chairs of the North American Food Animal Well-being Commission on Beef

In May of 2008 the first International Symposium of Beef Cattle Welfare was held at Kansas 

State University in Manhattan, Kansas. That event sparked discussions regarding the need for 

a North American-wide approach to responding to welfare issues that face the North American 

beef industry. Dr. Dan Thomson from Kansas State University, Dr. Mike Siemens from Cargill, 

Drs. Elisabeth Parker and Tom Fields from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) 

and others recognized that beef cattle welfare issues are not restricted to the United States, but 

span the borders into Canada and Mexico. The same live cattle, processors, transporters, 

wholesalers and retailers in the United States move back and forth across the Canadian and 

Mexican borders making issues that arise in one country of major concern and interest to the 

neighboring countries. This realization led to the formation of the North American Food Animal 

Well-being Commission on Beef.

How is it that the topic of beef cattle welfare deserves such a coordinated approach? Like food 

safety and environmental concerns the issues arising that relate to animal welfare represent 

potential tipping points for the industry. Though economics is typically the driver in determining 

the success or failure of a farming operation, a slaughter plant, etc., we are now at a point 

where animal welfare issues play a major role in the sustainability of the livestock industries.

Indirectly, economic constraints can lead to the vulnerability of the livestock industries on 

welfare grounds. As an example, Figure 1 shows the dramatic decline in the number of swine 

and beef producers in Canada during the last 45 years. During this time the number of cattle 

and hogs being produced within Canada has risen. Tied to the increase in livestock numbers 

and the decrease in the number of producers is a dramatic increase in farm size. This 

relationship is not unique to Canada and the exact scenario has occurred in the United States 

and elsewhere. As a general rule, as the number of animals on the farm increases, the 

operation becomes more intensive and more dependent on confinement rearing systems. At 

the same time we see less diversity in the types of systems and we see similar strategies 

emerge across an industry within a country. Survival of the fittest not only describes the 

producers who survive over time, it also describes the systems that survive through economic 

“selection.” It is estimated that nearly 80% of breeding sows in the United States are housed in 

gestation stalls during their pregnancy. If gestation stalls become socially unaccepted on 

welfare grounds (as they have in the United Kingdom, some European countries and in some 

U.S. states), then it places many producers in a vulnerable position. In such a scenario it 

becomes somewhat ironic that the widespread use of gestation stalls, adopted as an economic 

strategy to remain competitive and sustain the future of the operation, is in fact not a sustainable

choice under public pressure. In very simple terms it means that in order to be sustainable, a 
62

system must be sustainable on economic, animal welfare, and environmental grounds. 

Producers who are making decisions on which system to embrace on economic grounds alone 

may find their system or practices are not sustainable in the long run. This lesson is now very 

clear to producers in countries that have experienced the relatively recent arrival of welfare 

legislation for farm animals.

Fig

ure 1. The number of beef cows and hogs (left vertical axis) in Canada and the number of 

producers (right vertical axis) (1961-2006) Source: Statistics Canada, Census of 

Agriculture, various years.

Based on a Canadian study aimed at describing farm income and structure, a present day farm 

needs in excess of $250,000Cdn in annual revenue (Sparling, 2006, Institute of Agri-Food 

Policy Innovation) or roughly a herd size of 400 beef cows to remain viable. As a result our beef 

herds are growing in size, too, but surprisingly the cow/calf industry seems to be one livestock 

segment that becomes less intensive and less reliant on confinement as the farm and herd size 

increases. Currently more and more of the larger cow/calf producers in Western Canada are 

shifting toward a spring or summer calving season. While it may be more natural to calve in 

sink with the availability of grass, it also means some of the larger operations are spending less 

time attending cows at calving time because the cows are scattered over a larger area and 

because the calves are not at risk to extreme weather conditions. Therefore, cows that need 

assistance at calving can go undetected for longer periods of time and some may miss 

assistance altogether and be more vulnerable to predation than was typically seen when calving 

in corrals. This may be an example in which the general public becomes less concerned about 

welfare issues for beef cattle under the extensive range systems because the risks appear more 

223, 402

11, 497

167,773

83,000

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 N

u

m

b

e

r

o

f

P

r

o

d

u

c

e

r

s

(

t

h

o

u

s

a

n

d

s

)

N

u

m

b

e

r

o

f

A

n

i

m

a

l

s

(

t

h

o

u

s

a

n

d

s

)

Number of Hogs

Number of Beef 

Cows

Number of Hog 

Producers

Number of Beef 

Producers
63

natural, but in fact the change toward pasture or range calving simply brings with it a different 

set of animal welfare concerns.

Like other livestock and poultry industries, the beef cattle industry is not immune to welfare 

concerns and, as mentioned earlier, the issues span across the borders of North America. For 

this reason the North American Food Animal Well-being Commission on Beef (NAFAWC-Beef) 

was established in 2009. The group is comprised of animal scientists and veterinarians who 

have demonstrated through their research and careers an interest in beef cattle welfare issues. 

Their mission is to serve as “an independent voice to advance evidence-based and practical 

improvements in the care and well-being of North American beef cattle.”

The beef commission will operate under the umbrella of the Food Animal Welfare Network (an 

organization yet to be formed). In time it is expected that other livestock and poultry industries 

will form similar commissions. The responsibilities of the NAFAWC-Beef are listed in Table 1.

____________________________________________________________________________

Identify the most important animal welfare issues facing the beef industry

Develop standards of production for beef cattle

Guide research needs and field investigations

Produce reports to address issues and solve problems 

Independently review and endorse practices, standards and assessment tools when asked by 

stakeholders 

Develop animal well-being monitoring system for real time feedback in outcomes of practices 

utilized to raise cattle

Recommend and develop animal care-giver training programs and monitor training

Represent our stakeholders interests in state and national public forums when requested by 

overarching commission

____________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. A list of responsibilities of the North American Food Animal Well-being 

Commission on Beef.

The list of responsibilities is ambitious and will require significant coordination and time for the 

commissioners to attend to each area. 
64

____________________________________________________________________________

Top Beef Cattle Welfare Concerns Response

Environmental conditions for animals (heat, mud, etc.) 14

Painful procedures 13

Weaning/Preconditioning/Respiratory disease issues 11

Transportation 8

Cattle handling 7

Disposal of chronically ill animals 6

Alternatives to branding 5

Euthanasia techniques 4

Public perception and legislation of Animal Welfare 3

Metabolic disease 2

Electro ejaculation of bulls 2

Timing of castration/dehorning 2

Employee training 2

Basic best management practices 2

Unwanted dairy bull calves 2

Auction market handling of animals 1

Dust control for cattle 1

Economics of improved welfare 1

Dystocia of feeder heifers 1

Disconnect between beef and dairy industries 1

____________________________________________________________________________

Table 2. Beef cattle welfare issues identified by commissioners of the NAFAWC and the 

number of times the topic was selected.

Prior to the first meeting of the NAFAWC-Beef an informal survey was completed by the 

members to identify the top welfare concerns they believe to be facing the beef industry. The 

survey results are listed in Table 2. The list is varied and ranges from the broader hot button 

issues, which are typically identified by public critics (e.g., painful procedures, transportation, 

etc.) to more specific problems that informed beef producers are trying to improve (e.g., cattle 

handling, weaning, respiratory diseases, etc.).

Nearly all the issues will require more research, education and coordination to tackle, and some 

topics are recognized as needing more regulations to control the problem. For example, the 

issue of downed animals at auction markets will require a combination of educating producers 

and transporters to identify candidates unable to withstand long hauls, with stronger regulations 

or penalties for shipping animals unfit for transport. Historically there was a strong moral and 

ethical responsibility to avoid waste and to salvage the meat from any animal fit for human 

consumption, but public outrage at the sight of a downed animal clearly demonstrates that the 

“sin” of wasting an animal is trumped by the “sin” of an animal suffering and unable to rise. 

Producers, transporters and livestock markets must adapt to this newer ethic. Also, because a 

large portion of downed cattle are culled dairy cattle that were destined for slaughter and 

consumption as “beef”, the beef commissioners recognize that such issues will require 

coordination and collaboration between the dairy and beef industries.

Funding for NAFAWC to research, review and address these issues will come from the Grandin 

Foundation (a nonprofit 501©) 3 charitable organization). The board of directors for the newly 
65

formed Grandin Foundation and the Farm Animal Welfare Network remain to be selected. The 

current beef commissioners for NAFAWC are listed in Table 3 and represent a cross-section of 

scientists and veterinarians who are already working on many of these issues.

____________________________________________________________________________

Name Affiliation

Coetzee, Hans Kansas State University

Gill, Gill Texas A&M University

Grandin, Temple Colorado State University

Griffin, Dee University of Nebraska

Loneragan, Guy West Texas A&M University

Mitloehner, Frank University of California, Davis

Noffsinger, Tom Benkelman, Nebraska

Riddell, Gatz AABP, Executive Director

Rushen, Jeff Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Schwartzkopf-Genswein, Karen Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Shearer, Jan Iowa State University

Sjeklocha, Dave Academy of Veterinary Consultants

Smith, Bob Oklahoma State University

Stookey, Joseph University of Saskatchewan

Stull, Carolyn University of California, Davis

Swanson, Janice Michigan State University

Thomson, Dan Kansas State University

Woods, Jennifer Blackie, Alberta

____________________________________________________________________________

Table 3. Members of the NAFAWC-Beef and their affiliation. 

It is the vision of the NAFAWC on Beef that all North American beef cattle receive proper care 

for their entire life. The commission intends to work toward that goal in an ethical, practical, 

unbiased, science-based manner driven by measurable outcomes.

References

Statistics Canada. 2006. Census of agriculture 1961-2001. Available at: 

http://datalib.usask.ca/dli/agriculture/1961-2001/ accessed April 2010. 

Sparling, D. 2006. Canada farm income and farm structure 1999-2004. Institute of Agri-food 

policy innovation, Guelph. Ontario. Available at:

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/pol/consult/miss/pdf/a30.pdf accessed April 2010.
66

Economic impact of transitioning from swine gestation stalls 

to group pen housing

Brian L. Buhr3

University of Minnesota

Need for Study

Modern swine production systems rely heavily on confinement production systems for cost 

effective and humane production of pork products. However, there are increasing calls to 

reduce or eliminate the use of individual sow gestation stalls for housing breeding sows and 

gilts. The European Union is phasing out stall use by 2013. Voters in Florida and Arizona have 

approved ballot initiatives to ban their use in the coming years, and in 2007 the Oregon Senate 

passed a bill banning gestation crates. Restrictions on gestation crates also have entered the 

U.S. Farm Bill discussions.

Imposition of regulatory requirements on production methods will result in significant costs to 

producers and, ultimately, to consumers who pay a higher price for pork products. This study 

examines the economic costs of transitioning the U.S. swine production sector from a breeding 

sector based on gestation stall facilities to one based on group housed pen facilities.

Do Pens Improve Welfare and Maintain Productivity?

Prior research on sow productivity and welfare suggests that the type of system does not 

necessarily determine sow welfare. Stalls allow for individual sow management and remove the 

potential for sow aggression and injury, but sows are incapable of full movement. Pens allow 

for greater mobility, but also allow sow aggression that can result in injury and also extreme 

variation in body condition between aggressive and submissive sows. 

It is also not clear that productivity differs between gestation stalls and pens. Prior research has 

found no significant productivity differences. A survey was conducted asking producers using 

pen housing on a commercial scale to address productivity impacts. This survey also found no 

consistent difference in productivity. However, respondents indicated several key issues that 

would affect group housing productivity: (1) producers must learn to manage group dynamics of 

sows; (2) some stall use must be available for up to 32 days after breeding for proper 

implantation and also for isolation of sows when they “fall-out” of pens; (3) feeding for 

management of body condition variation is critical; (4) space allocation per sow relative to pen 

 

3 Brian Buhr is Professor in Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota and can be contacted at 

the Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 

55108-6040 Phone: (612)625-0231 or e-mail: bbuhr@umn.edu.

This report is an executive summary of a full staff paper that can be found at: http://purl.umn.edu/61604. 

This report represents the results of research conducted independently by the author and does not 

represent any affiliation, endorsement, view or policy of the University of Minnesota.
67

size is critical; and (5) the potential for catastrophic productivity losses is greater with pens. So, 

although there does not appear to be significant differences on average in production, there are 

significant risks posed by transitioning the industry from stalls to pens in a short time frame.

Base Assumptions and Scenarios for Economic Analysis

The economic analysis is based on the economic impact of transitioning from gestation stall 

housing to group pen housing under a regulatory mandate. The capital costs of transition are 

evaluated in addition to the potential impacts of differences in productivity.

To determine the economic impacts on the pork industry of a transition to pen housing, two 

alternative pen systems were simulated: a trickle feed system with small pens of six or fewer

sows and an electronic sow feeding (ESF) system with large pens of 50 to 60 sows. The trickle 

feed system is simpler to operate and implement as a retrofit, but may require additional barn 

square footage. The ESF system is technically more sophisticated with the potential for greater 

management and maintenance issues, but it allows for sows to be housed on the same square 

footage as existing stall systems. Both systems were scaled to a commercial level of 2,400 and 

1,200 sow units.

The capital replacement cost is modeled so that the additional cost of retrofitting or replacing an 

existing barn prior to the end of its depreciable life (about 25 years) results in increased capital 

costs, but no improvement in revenue if productivity is unchanged. This is modeled as an 

infinite horizon net present value problem. To aggregate impacts to an industry level requires 

estimation of the number of barns to be replaced or retrofitted and the average age of the barns 

to determine their useful life lost. Based on US Department of Agriculture data it is estimated 

that 1,725 barns with 1200 sows would need to transition to the replacement housing system 

and 1,370 barns with 2400 sows would need to transition as a retrofitted facility. No information 

is available on barn age, so the ages are assumed to be uniformly distributed over 25 years.

Three scenarios are analyzed: (1) the productivity costs are unchanged between stall and pen 

based gestation and the only cost is the capital cost of retrofitting stall facilities or building new 

pen systems; (2) in addition to the capital costs, it is assumed that productivity decreases for 

two years during the transition, this is the most likely scenario; and (3) the productivity 

decreases are persistent for the life of the facilities, this is the worst case scenario.

Barn Level Economic Impacts

The following table shows the most likely impacts of a transition to pen housing assuming a 

uniform distribution of the age of existing facilities at the time a regulation requiring transition is 

introduced. Industry losses will range between $1.87 billion and $3.24 billion.
68

Most Likely Aggregate Industry Economic Costs of Transitioning to Group Pen Housing

Scenario Total Industry Cost

Percent Decrease in 

Industry NPV

Total Average Cost to Retrofit Barns to Trickle Feed $ 1,867,892,023.74 74%

Total Average Cost to Build New Trickle Feed $ 3,240,730,303.66 129%

Total Average Cost to Build New ESF Feed $ 3,237,111,517.39 97%

Capital Cost Plus 2 Year Productivity Loss

Note: ESF percent decrease is lower because the cost basis of the stall barn comparison 

was also different. NPV = net present value

Several factors affect these losses. The shorter the time period for transition the greater the 

economic losses. If productivity losses are permanent, which may be reasonable if pen facilities 

are more difficult to manage, the losses will increase. The best case is to allow barns to

transition at the end of their useful life, and with no loss in productivity from group housing sows. 

Also, because facility ages likely do vary by region and firm, even policies that allow 

transitioning at the end of facility life will create structural competitive differences among firms 

and regions. Those with older average age facilities will benefit more relative to those with 

newer facilities.

Sensitivity of Economic Impacts to Assumed Variable Levels

The levels of key input variables such as sow productivity measures, depreciable life of the 

barns, and the transition period can impact the economic estimates of the costs of a transition to 

group housing. A sensitivity analysis was completed, varying the level of key input variables 

used in the simulation. The following graph shows the relative impact of a 10% change in these 

input variables on the net present value producers will receive after the transition. Results show

that as expected, productivity variables such as farrowing rate have the greatest impact on 

profitability. Therefore, it is imperative to determine expected productivity impacts. Capital 

costs are not as crucial because the one-time transition is eventually amortized from the 

production system.
69

For the two "Depreciable Life of Facility" bars, assume one barn depreciates faster than the 

other. Having faster depreciation reduces the cost of the transition.

Market Level Adjustment to the Transition

As the cost of pork increases due to the transition to group housing, hog production will be 

expected to decrease and hog and pork prices will increase. A market supply and demand 

model including trade is used to analyze the market level price/quantity adjustments. The 

following table shows the impacts on consumer and producer surplus which is a net measure of 

the increases in prices and reductions in quantities from market response to higher costs of 

production.

The key implication is that pork producers lose $1.5 billion dollars---less than half the 

approximately $3.2 billion they lose if market adjustments are not accounted for. As typical of 

cost increases in a commodity market, consumers bear most of the cost increases resulting in 

an estimated $5 billion loss to consumers. 

$(3,500) $(3,000) $(2,500) $(2,000) $(1,500) $(1,000) $(500) $- $500

Sow Mortality Rate

Farrowing Rate

Total Pigs Born Per Litter

Stillborn Pigs Born Per Litter

Pre-weaning Mortality

Litters Farrowed/Breeding Female/Year

Average Lactation Length

Feed Intake Gestation (lbs/sow/day)

Feed Intake Farrowing (lbs/sow/day)

Feed Intake Gilts (lb/gilt/day)

Investment Cost in New Trickle Feed 

Cost of Retrofit

Gestation Square Footage per Sow

Discount Rate

Depreciable Life of Facility (years)

Depreciable Life of Facility (years)

Equipment Costs ($/sow)

Maintenance and Repair ($/sow)

Change in Lifetime NPV Due to 10% Worse Input Variable (thousands)

Retrofit New

Facility/Capital Input Variables

Production Input Variables
70

Beef and chicken producers gain because consumers switch consumption to these meats and 

their prices rise as well. A similar substitution effect occurs for imported pork products that 

increase to replace the more expensive domestic pork products. Therefore, regulations to 

restrict sow housing will place the U.S. pork sector at a competitive disadvantage to other 

domestic meat sectors and to international pork production if they don’t adopt similar standards.

Most Likely Impacts on Market Level Producer and Consumer Costs

Variable

Change in Producer Surplus (Net Impact)

Pork Producer Surplus Mill $ -$1,491.30

Beef Producer Surplus Mill $ $1,193.20

Chicken Producer Surplus Mill $ $469.23

Change in Consumer Surplus

Pork Consumer Surplus Mill $ -$2,714.12

Beef Consumer Surplus Mill $ -$1,698.46

Chicken Consumer Surplus Mill $ -$576.34

Total Consumer Surplus Mill $ -$4,988.92

ESF Productivity Impacts 2 year Transition

An argument is typically made that increased animal welfare is demanded by consumers and 

they will compensate producers by paying higher prices. However, as clearly shown the market 

alone will not compensate producers. To fully compensate pork producers would require an 

additional 25 percent increase in consumer willingness to pay for U.S. pork products from sows 

raised in pens. The problem is that only a small subset of consumers is actually willing to pay a 

large difference for animal-friendly practices. Consumers not willing to pay for these practices 

are essentially taxed by a regulation that mandates costly production practices such as the 

transition to pen housing. 

Conclusions

Any regulation that mandates transition to pen-based housing from existing stall housing prior to 

the end of the useful life of existing facilities will result in increased costs to the pork industry. 

Ultimately these costs will be borne by consumers. An alternative approach is to allow phase-in 

as barns reach the end of their useful life, but only if it can be determined that there are no 

reductions in productivity or sow welfare due to pen housing, a process that will require further 

research and preferably commercial-scale research trials. Perhaps the best alternative is to 

develop labeling and certification programs that allow producers and consumers who share 

concerns regarding gestation stalls to more effectively participate in market-oriented 

transactions. This would avoid the aggregate cost impacts of a large-scale mandatory transition 

and allow consumers to target their spending to preferred animal rearing methods and products.
71

Future welfare of farmers and their animals

John Deen

University of Minnesota

Paper not provided. See power point section for slides.
72

Panel: Comprehensive analysis of certification and 

regulatory programs: What is the future?

David Townsend

Smithfield Foods (Swine industry)

Paper and power point slides not provided.
73

Panel: Comprehensive analysis of certification and 

regulatory programs: What is the future?

Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton

Mississippi State University

A world without laws would be like musical chairs with no rules. Laws and regulations are 

necessary, however. It is difficult to write a law and subsequent regulations that are neither 

ambiguous nor plagued with unintended consequences. Compounding the problem is the 

recent trend to participatory democracy in which citizens have access to the ballot through the 

referendum process. 

For example, Proposition 2, a citizen’s initiative that resulted in regulations banning the use of 

traditional cages for chickens, was intended to provide the birds with an environment that 

allowed egg collection for food use while providing the birds with more humane living conditions. 

This has been interpreted by many to mean “cage-less.” Current scientific evidence 

demonstrates that enriched cages may be more humane based on comparing the positive and 

negative aspects of various housing types. Regardless of intent, this legislation could easily 

result in a reduced supply of commercial eggs at a significantly increased cost.

Another example is the current U.S. regulation for the presence of Salmonella in poultry. In the 

United States, regulations address the genus with no species or serotype exceptions. The 

original goal of the regulations was to improve human health through a reduction in the 

presence of Salmonella on raw poultry products. The motivation was good, but the execution 

flawed. Not all of the two thousand plus serotypes cause human disease so reduction is 

possible without any reduction in the incidence of disease—which is indeed the current 

situation. In addition, other countries that regulate specific serotypes are using the published 

data as a reason for banning importation of U.S. products. This is further complicated by 

variation in sampling methodology among countries.

Further, it is difficult in many cases to adequately enforce regulations due to a lack of personnel. 

This often results in compliance by complaint. In contrast, certification programs can be written 

that allow precise evaluation of compliance and ease of amendment or alteration as new 

information becomes necessary. In certain situations, the laws can be better upheld and 

compliance verified using certification programs rather than extensive regulations. Third party 

auditors can be used on a fee basis making them more economical and efficient than the 

broader-based governmental regulatory programs.

If the general public continues to lose connection with agriculture, it is likely that there will be 

increased pressure on regulators to promulgate regulations that will have negative 

consequences for the food supply. If, however, there are third party audit programs in place 

that can be verified, it will be easier to avoid the negative impact of regulation.
74

World and U.S. population growth: How can we feed everyone?

William Weldon

Elanco Animal Health

See Appendix C for paper.
75

Should there be biotechnology in the future of animal agriculture?

L. Val Giddings

PrometheusAB, Inc. 

Should the future of animal agriculture have a place for biotechnology? First, what IS 

biotechnology? The term has been used in many ways, with different meanings. It embraces 

fermentation, tissue culture, embryo rescue, somatic cell nuclear transplantation, marker 

assisted breeding, genome sequencing, and transgenic. Most of the controversy in recent 

years has centered around the use of transgenic technologies and somatic cell nuclear 

transplantation, or "cloning." For the purposes of this paper/presentation, the primary reference 

will be to transgenic technologies, in which exogenous deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is 

incorporated into the genome of an organism to impart a desired characteristic through 

expression products of the introduced genetic material.

A useful baseline for consideration is provided by the experience to date, around the world, with 

transgenic technologies applied to domesticated crops. Primarily used in soybeans, corn 

(maize), and cotton, the impacts have been dramatic and positive. At the end of the first 

fourteen years of commercial growing of biotech crops, from 1996–-2009, 134 million hectares 

(331 million acres) of biotech crops were in the ground, grown by 14 million farmers, 13 million 

of whom are smallholder in developing countries (James, 2010). These farmers grow biotech 

crops in 25 countries, legally, and several more (e.g., Ukraine, Iran) in which the legal status is 

unclear, or actually "prohibited." History does not record a more rapid adoption of a new 

agricultural technology. Introduction of artificial selection took place over millennia, as did the 

introduction of plowing for weed control. The introduction of hybrid seed, particularly with 

corn/maize, spanned several decades. By contrast, in less than two decades, biotech-improved 

varieties of soybeans have grown to comprise 77% of the global soybean harvest, 49% of the 

cotton, 26 % of the corn/maize, and 21% of global canola (James, 2010). The reason for this is 

simple: biotech-improved varieties deliver dramatic value at every level from farm to fork.

These crops have delivered substantial and significant economic, environmental, and consumer 

benefits. They have added $33.8 billion to farm income (Brooks and Barfoot, 2010), decreased 

the carbon emissions associated with agriculture by 15.6 billion kilograms of CO2 in 2008 alone, 

and reduced the use of pesticide sprays by 352 million kilograms between 1996 and 2008. It is 

estimated that the increased production derived through biotech-improved cultivars has helped 

keep commodity prices significantly lower than they would otherwise have been (from 3 to10%; 

Brookes et al., 2010) and that producing the same amount of harvest with non-biotech varieties 

would have taken 2.64 million hectares of land (6.5 million acres) beyond what was actually 

used.

Despite the claims of opponents, the safety record of foods and feed derived from these crops 

has been exemplary. At the end of a 15-year project involving 81 separate studies by 400 

teams, costing 70 million Euros, the European Commission concluded:

Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably 

make [GM foods] even safer than conventional plants and foods;... ...the benefits of 
76

these plants and products for human health and the environment become increasingly 

clear (EC, 2001).

The Commission on Green Biotechnology of the Union of the German Academies of Science 

and Humanities concluded that:

Food from GM maize is more healthy than from conventionally grown maize... samples 

with the highest fumonisin concentrations are found in products labeled “organic” (ABIC, 

2004).

The Government of Australia found that:

Anti-GM campaigns have focused on possible environmental and food safety concerns 

associated with GM crops and food products. The likely position is, in fact, the 

complete opposite. GM crops offer potentially significant health and 

environmental benefits. For example, adoption of GM varieties has transformed the 

Australian cotton industry’s environmental performance, reducing insecticide use by 70% 

over the past decade (Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group, 2006).

The conclusions of independent, authoritative scientists can be summed up in a representative 

citation: 

The risks GE crops pose for the environment, and especially biodiversity, have been 

extensively assessed worldwide during the past ten years of commercial cultivation. 

Consequently, substantial scientific data on environmental effects of the currently 

commercialized GE crops is available today....The data available so far provide no 

scientific evidence that the commercial cultivation of GE crops has caused 

environmental harm (Olivier, et al.,). 

In view of such stellar benefits derived through the use of biotechnology innovations in crop 

agriculture, one could be forgiven for wondering on what basis any suggestion to abjure the use 

of biotechnology in animal agriculture could rest.

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that global 

demography will shift dramatically over the next 40 years. Whereas in 1999, 70% of people 

grew what they ate, it is estimated that by 2025, 50% of the global population will live in cities 

and depend on imported food and market channels. Global population is anticipated to reach 9 

billion by 2040, and economic uplift is expected to double the demand for meat protein over this 

period. The FAO estimates that in order to achieve the necessary doubling of food production, 

gains will have to come from additional farmlands (20%), increased intensity of agricultural 

production (10%), and new technologies (70%; OECD-FAO, 2010).

Particularly in regard to animal agriculture, how might biotechnology help? Virtually every 

livestock production or quality constraint can be mitigated or overcome through biotechnology 

(Giddings, 2006). Myriad applications exist in the biomedical arena as well. Tools available to 

address agricultural challenges include, of course, breeding, the analysis and manipulation of 

qualitative trait loci, and various forms of marker-assisted selection, combined with 

chromosomal analyses and genome-wide selection. Tools in biomedicine (and all of these tools 
77

are applicable in multiple sectors) include genomic and proteomic analysis, metabolomics, 

nuclear transfer technologies, microinjection, and phenotype assays. Agricultural traits that can 

be enhanced with these tools include meat and milk quality and composition, productivity, 

conformation, disease resistance, hardiness, fertility and fecundity, environmental tolerance, 

and environmental footprint. Biomedical applications will include animal disease models; 

xenotransplant sources for cells, organs, and tissues; as well as high value products including 

inter alia, devices, drugs, and biologics. 

There are safety and ethical issues, to be sure, but these do not seem to be qualitatively 

different from those with which societies have grappled since the dawn of domestication 

(Budiansky, 1992).

It must nevertheless be said that biotechnology is not a silver bullet; it will not solve all the 

problems we face, nor is there any reason to prefer it to other approaches when and where they 

provide superior solutions. Indeed, the magnitude of the challenges we face is such that we 

cannot afford to reject any approach for any reason except that there is a better way. But when 

the question is raised as to whether or not biotechnology should be one of the tools in our 

toolbox, the conclusion seems clear:

Instead of rejecting the solutions offered by science, we should change policies to 

assure that the solutions benefit the poor... Condemning biotechnology for its potential 

risks without considering the alternative risks of prolonging the human misery caused by 

hunger, malnutrition and child death is unwise and unethical (Pinstrup-Anderson, 2001).

References

See www.abic2004.org/download/reportongmohazards.pdf.

Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group, Government of Australia, 2006. Creating our 

Future: Agriculture and Food policy for the Next Generation. At 

http://www.agfoodgroup.gov.au/next_generation.html.

Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot, 2010. Global impact of biotech crops: Environmental 

effects, 1996-2008. AgBioForum 13(1): n6.

http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n1/v13n1a06-brookes.htm.

Brookes, Graham, Tun Hsiang, ”Edward" Yu, Simla Tokgoz, and Amani Elobeid, 2010. The 

production and price impact of biotech corn, canola, and soybean crops. AgBioForum 13(1):n3. 

http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n1/v13n1a03-brookes.htm. 

Budiansky, Stephen. 1992. The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication. 

Yale University Press. New Haven & London. 190pp. ISBN 0-300-07993-I.

European Commission, 2001. Press release of 8 October : 

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp5/eag-gmo.html and 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp5/pdf/eag-gmo.pdf ).

Giddings, L. Val. 2006. Whither Agbiotechnology? Nature Biotechnology 24(3):274-6 (March).
78

James, Clive. 2010. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:2009; the first 14 

years, 1996-2009. ISAAA Brief 41-2009. 

http://isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp. 

Pinstrup-Andersen, Per. 2001. Director General, International Food Policy Research Institute 

(IFPRI), 2001. http://www.apsnet.org/education/feature/foodsecurity/

Sanvido, Olivier, Michele Stark, Jorg Romeis and Franz Bigler. 2006. Ecological impacts of 

genetically engineered crops: Ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. ISB 

News Report, December 2006, pp. 6-9. www.isb.vt.edu.

2010 OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook. 

http://www.agri-outlook.org/pages/0,2987,en_36774715_36775671_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.
79

Agricultural productivity strategies for the future: 

Addressing U.S. and global challenges

Gale A. Buchanan

Former Under Secretary, REE, USDA

Luther Tweeten

Professor Emeritus, the Ohio State University

Bob Herdt

Adjunct Professor, Cornell University

We appreciate the opportunity to share a summary of CAST Issue Paper No. 45, Agricultural 

Productivity Strategies for the Future – Addressing U.S. and Global Challenges. We appreciate 

your interest, commitment, and concern for the future of agricultural productivity.

I was honored to chair the writing team with two outstanding co-authors, Luther Tweeten from 

The Ohio State University and Bob Herdt formerly with the Rockefeller Foundation and now at 

Cornell University. Both are distinguished agricultural economists. The preface was written by 

Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug. I’ll say more about Dr. Borlaug later.

We had three very able reviewers: Chuck Conner, President and CEO, National Council of 

Farmer Cooperatives; Charles E. Hess, University of California, Davis; and Per PinstrupAndersen, Cornell University. 

Dr. Norman Borlaug was truly a giant, especially to those of us engaged in various aspects of 

agriculture. Although he has been recognized in many ways including a Nobel Peace Prize, a 

Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal, his greatest contribution 

was his vision and commitment to ensuring food security for the people on this planet.

Introduction

In this paper, we describe some of the challenges facing agriculture and present strategies that 

will enable agriculture to meet future demands and expectations we will face.

We do not explicitly address important issues of food safety, international trade barriers, farm 

prices and income support, etc. Rather we focus on the basic need for developing the 

information, knowledge and technology required to make sound decisions regarding agricultural 

productivity and ensuring sustainability.

Correcting pathologies in the broader U.S. economy can reinforce the ability of agriculture to 

increase its productivity and exports. This may include correcting such things as living beyond 

our means; importing more than we export; borrowing more than we lend; spending more than 

we earn; and consuming more than we produce.
80

Given the finite nature of agricultural production resources such as water, land, and nutrients, as 

well as the myriad constraints on agricultural production—particularly animal agriculture—future 

successes of agriculture must be achieved through enhanced productivity. 

Future Demands Facing Agriculture

The principal drivers of global demand for agricultural output includes a growing population, 

particularly in developing countries; increased expectations for a better standard of living that 

includes more protein in the form of meat, milk, and other animal products in both developed 

and developing countries; increases in disposable income; and the use of some agricultural 

output for addressing energy needs of the planet.

One billion people in poor countries today rarely get enough to eat. Another billion do not get 

sufficient nutrients, minerals, and proteins. Poorer countries will continue to draw heavily on 

food imports in the face of global climate change.

Based on the median population growth that includes non-food demands, the overall demand 

for farm products is projected to be 143% of year 2000 output in 2025 and 179% of 2000 output 

in 2050. 

Bioenergy and Bioproducts Bring about a New Paradigm for Agriculture

In the future, petroleum will become more limited and expensive. It is clear that we are nearing 

the end of the era of cheap petroleum. This fact along with recognition that agriculture can 

contribute to meeting the energy challenge means that future strategies for agriculture must 

take this into account.

Harvesting the sun’s energy through agriculture will be one of the approaches to meeting the 

energy challenge and this means an almost limitless demand for agricultural output. This will 

bring about a new paradigm for agriculture.

Current and Emerging Constraints on Future Agricultural Productivity in the United 

States

While agriculture is already facing many challenges, there are also a number of current and 

emerging constraints that will affect agricultural productivity in the days ahead. Here are a few 

of those constraints.

Soil erosion caused by water, wind, and other factors

Water is already a major constraint, but undoubtedly will become an even greater issue in the 

future. 

Lack of support for bioengieered crops

Plants bioengineered to cope better with heat, salinity, and too much or too little moisture offers 

substantive new benefits. Unfortunately, significant voices still oppose the use of the powerful 

techniques of biotechnology and genetically engineered crops. 
81

Animal welfare issues

Protein from meat and other animal products are a source of high-quality proteins and comprise 

an important component of the diet of many humans. Globally, much land unsuited to crop 

production is best suited for livestock grazing. However, particularly in Europe and the United 

States (U.S.) there are strong voices that oppose animal agriculture. Most of us see this as a 

major challenge and substantial constraint on agricultural productivity in the decades ahead. 

This is a challenge in which we must project and communicate a credible, transparent message 

that accepts accountability.

Personally, it does not bother me if someone prefers to not consume animal products. That 

should be a personal preference. However, those of us who are involved with agricultural 

productivity and have responsibility for meeting the needs and expectations of the people are 

concerned. 

Quite frankly, there is a struggle for who determines what we eat. Will it be food producers? 

Probably not. More likely, it will be various organizations and groups that have a specific 

agenda. These include the vegans, those who push meatless days or organic days or locally 

grown days. Then, what about those of us in agriculture who push our own products, even at 

the expense of others.

Of course, the consumer should be the one who determines what he/she eats. But the decision 

should be made on an informed, non-emotional basis.

As a plant scientist, I find that the whole issue of animal agriculture reminds me of the opening 

scene of “Dances with Wolves.” You recall, Costner is riding between two armed camps and 

both sides are shooting at him. It is important that we find common ground such that animal 

agriculture remains a viable and integral component of agriculture. We must find a way to meet 

the challenges that lie ahead. In the final analysis, the future of animal agriculture is in the 

hands of society as a whole.

Animal confinement has led to the development of EPA regulations on concentrated animal 

feeding operations (CAFOs). These regulations can significantly increase capital requirements 

and costs in dairy, hog, and other livestock production systems. We recognize that animal 

agriculture will change due to many economic and social pressures that include various 

regulations, certifications, local ordinances, propositions, and laws. 

State and local regulations stemming from animal welfare concerns have a similar effect of 

raising production costs. If costs increase too much, livestock production will shift to 

jurisdictions without such regulations or out of the country. Thus, federal regulations may drive 

production overseas and state regulations may drive production into other states with lower 

animal welfare standards.

When markets alone do not provide desirable levels of environmental protection or animal 

welfare, a public role may be appropriate. The usual avenue for public policy is through state or 

national legislative bodies. 
82

Some alternative agriculture advocates are increasingly trying to turn such environmental issues 

to direct vote of the people rather than the traditional representative democracy of legislatures to 

achieve their objectives.

Unless voters are informed by science and education, unintended consequences may result 

from such plebiscite democracy. For example, requirements for costly facilities and equipment 

mandated for U.S. poultry and livestock producers can drive production elsewhere. 

A recent example is in California where voters passed Proposition 2 mandating that as of 

January 1, 2015, it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to confine a pregnant pig, calf raised 

for veal, or egg-laying hen in a manner not allowing the animal to turn around freely, stand up, 

lie down, and fully extend its limbs. A laying hen has a wingspan of 3 feet, hence would require 

9 square feet per bird, more than 10 times the current average cage space per laying hen.

We recognize some of the challenges in animal agriculture but there are some bright spots. For 

example, some recent research into controlling climate emissions indicates that feed additives 

(including oil) can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developing a better 

understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of confinement vs. free range systems and 

how we can balance welfare and economics is an important goal for research. 

Other challenges include developing better animal health products, developing alternatives to

antibiotics and addressing antibiotic resistance, food security such as decreasing microbial risk, 

and capturing the power of biotechnology. The latter includes a host of challenges such as 

metabolic modifiers. Much research should be focused on more effectively converting animal 

waste into energy. Another important challenge is enabling the public to have a better 

understanding and appreciation of animal welfare and its relation to livestock production. 

Because of the importance of animal agriculture in achieving a secure food future for the people 

on this planet, CAST has a long history of addressing important and relevant issues related to 

animal agriculture.

Here are some other constraints on agricultural productivity.

Endangered Species Act 

Preserving the planet’s diversity of flora and fauna is important for future generations. It should 

be borne in mind, however, that preserving diversity comes at a price. In the final analysis, 

decisions must be made carefully after weighing costs vs. benefits.

Fertilizer resources

Among principal commercial fertilizer resources, nitrogen is plentiful in the air (78%), but 

currently is made available to agriculture primarily through natural gas feedstock resources. 

Potassium reserves are abundant. However, phosphorus derived from phosphate rock is a 

limiting mineral resource in crop production. The United States extracted 31 million metric tons 

(mmt) of phosphate rock in 2008 from a reserve base of 3,400 mmt.
83

Global warming

Although overall agricultural output and cropland area may not be affected materially by global 

climate change in the United States, the crops we grow and the location of crop production will 

change. While specific climate changes are still being observed and the topic debated, there is 

general agreement that agriculture will certainly be impacted because of water availability, 

temperature variation, and other factors.

Major Issues Facing Agricultural Productivity Outside the United States

As the world becomes more global in nature, there is a greater need to consider agriculture 

productivity from a global perspective. I’d like to mention four countries or places in the world 

that are particularly relevant to agricultural productivity considerations for the twenty-first 

century. 

China and India will generate a major fraction of future global agricultural demand from both 

income and population growth centers today and for the foreseeable future. Brazil, already an 

agricultural power probably more than any other major country on the planet, has the ability to 

become an even greater center of agricultural production in the future.

Conversely, sub-Saharan Africa is a region of the world where a significant portion of the 

population lives very close to the edge of hunger and has not been able to increase its 

agricultural production to keep pace with its needs. In this region, the growth rate of agricultural 

gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was close to zero in the 1970s, and negative 

throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Even with a positive growth rate in the last 10 years, 

however, this region desperately needs to increase productivity of agriculture if it is to progress 

in the future. 

Strategies to Meet Future Agricultural Needs for Agricultural Output

The future success of agricultural productivity requires a supportive institutional structure. Much 

of this must come from the public sector. The private sector generally under invests in this area 

because it is unable to capture or derive profit. Basic research and education are definitely in 

the public domain.

How Should We Assist Less-Developed Countries? 

1. First, we will continue to provide humanitarian food and support for less developed 

countries (LDC) to deal with crises, as we are doing currently in Haiti.

2. We must continue supporting and helping to build institutions and intellectual capacity. 

This reminds me of the adage: (1) Give him a fish (2) Teach him to fish (3) Teach him to 

grow fish.

3. We must continue working to develop international agreements and work to enhance 

international trade to address problems such as global climate change; air; water and 

land degradation; endangered species; and, protection and sharing of germplasm.
84

While more developed countries spend 2 to 4 % of their agricultural gross domestic product 

(GDP) on agricultural research, most of Africa spends less than 0.5%. 

The Next “Green Revolution”

Agricultural policy in the twenty-first century for all nations of the world must include a strong 

commitment to science. 

Dr. Borlaug clearly understood that science was a necessary and key part of agricultural policy 

to alleviate hunger in poorer regions of the world. That is why in his last writings he called for a 

second “Green Revolution.” The critical and key question for us today is, “How do we go about 

creating a second “Green Revolution”?

First, I’d like to emphasize that all branches of science must be involved: basic and applied. 

Classical genetics and plant breeding played a central role in the first Green Revolution and will 

continue to be needed, but biotechnology that generates genetically modified organisms 

(GMOs) will play an increasingly important role in the second and future Green Revolutions.

The following are examples of promising approaches to improving agricultural productivity. 

Example #1 – Converting or enabling C3 plants to utilize the C4 photosynthetic pathway 

Example #2 – Nitrogen fixation in non-legumes

Example #3 – Incorporating the process of apomixis into crop plants

Example #4 – Improving pest resistance in plants 

Example #5 – Improving energy efficiency of plants

Example #6 – Effectively and efficiently capturing all animal waste

Example #7 – Eliminating all respiratory disease in livestock

Example #8 – Utilizing the power of genomics and biotechnology to improve food animals

What is the Commitment to Agricultural Research to Bring About Another Green 

Revolution? 

We wish we could say that the commitment to research was there for developing the 

information, knowledge and technology to bring about a second Green Revolution. We just 

don’t see it.

There is an abundance of professional agricultural economic literature that reveals a strong 

association between agricultural productivity improvements and agricultural research. Given the 

unarguable linkage between research and agricultural productivity, we must strengthen our 

commitment to agricultural research.
85

Conclusions

Numerous factors are converging to create a “perfect storm” in terms of global food needs and 

expectations and agricultural output. While population growth rates are falling in some 

developed countries, global population is still increasing and is expected to increase in many 

developing countries for the next several decades. 

In addition to the increasing demands for food and energy in developing countries, developed 

countries, particularly the U.S., are increasing their (our) demands on agriculture for fuel 

(energy), ecosystem services, and other environmental concerns.

Meeting the Challenge

Responding to the needs and expectations is not solely the province of the national and industry 

leaders and local governments. The public also will have to actively support political action, 

particularly on such broad issues as global climate change, environmental regulations, welfare

of animals, natural resources, and investments in agricultural research and education. 

The greatest concern felt by the authors of this paper is the apparent lack of commitment by the 

United States and other countries to make the research and education expenditures needed to 

address the problems affecting our future well-being on this planet.

It will take a strong and constant public commitment to ensure adequate funding. We are 

hopeful and confident we can and will make such a commitment. Indeed, we have no other 

choice.
86

Sustainability myths and musts—

key animal agriculture issues moving forward to 2050

Jason W. Clay

SVP, Markets, WWF-US

“You can’t wake a person who’s pretending to sleep.” 

Oromo (Ethiopia) Proverb

Living on a Finite Planet

The world has finally “awoken” to the fact that we live on a single planet. Its resources are finite. 

This fact has been brought home to many when recent global economic growth led to spikes in 

commodity prices. While it should have been obvious that nonrenewable resources are finite, it 

is now clear that many renewable resources are being used at rates that are not sustainable as 

well. This includes seafood that comes from poorly managed marine fisheries as well as wood 

and pulp from poorly managed natural forests and food produced on agricultural ranch lands 

where soils, water and other key inputs are not managed sustainably.

World Wildlife Fund has developed a peer reviewed methodology, the Living Planet Index (LPI), 

which examines whether the Earth’s resources are being consumed sustainably or not. It 

publishes this information every two years in the Living Planet Report. What is clearer perhaps 

than ever before, however, is that the following equation must hold: 

Population x Consumption = Planet

Unfortunately, the Living Planet Report (2008) suggests that we are currently living at 1.3 

planets, i.e. well beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. So, just when we realize that we are 

not using the planet’s resources sustainably and that we will have to find ways to produce more 

with less, we now see that we have to rehabilitate the parts of the planet that we have 

degraded. 

And then there’s climate change. Many now understand that climate change poses a threat to 

every living thing on the planet. Unfortunately, many of us are still “asleep” to many of the other 

environmental threats that are perhaps even more serious in the short term than climate 

change. 

The LPI calculations suggest where we are today with regard to the overall carrying capacity of 

the planet, but they do not give insights into where we are headed, particularly if we continue 

business as usual. While the precise numbers are not certain, the trends are. There is 

increasing consensus among scientists that global population will peak at between 9 and 10 

billion by 2050. This translates to some three billion more people, 50% more than in 2000. In 

addition, by 2050 some 70% of all people are expected to live in cities, and their per capita 

income is expected to increase by 2.8 times (Clay 2010). Given these factors it is generally 

assumed that global consumption will double. What is less well understood is that with 

increasing income levels, many of the world’s poorest will in all likelihood more than double their 
87

overall food consumption. In short, while many of us are beginning to understand that we are 

living beyond the carrying capacity of the planet, few understand the overall impact of such 

increases in consumption. 

Focusing more specifically on water, a billion people currently lack adequate water. By 2025, 

there is likely to be a 13% increase in overall water consumption (Rosengrant et al, 2003), but 

every two out of three people will face water scarcity(UNEP 2002). And, by 2050, an estimated 

7 billion people in 60 countries (UN 2003) are expected to face water scarcity if something isn’t 

done before then. In short, the lack of water in an increasing number of places most likely poses 

a more urgent, short-term threat to people and biodiversity and challenge to food production 

than climate change. But the two are not unrelated—climate change will accentuate water 

scarcity issues. 

Food’s Environmental Footprint

The impacts of human activities are not equal. Nowhere is this clearer than with the production

of food--the set of human activities with the biggest impact on the planet, bar none. The use of 

land for food production (farming and ranching) is the single largest cause of habitat loss. It is 

also the single largest source of ecosystem loss from deforestation, to the draining of wetlands 

and alteration of local hydrology, and finally to the altering of rivers and river flows. Food 

production is the single largest user of chemicals globally (including herbicides, insecticides and 

fungicides as well as fertilizers and other nutrient supplements). Depending on the scientist, 

producing food is one of the largest, if not the largest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that 

contribute to climate change—and that is without instruments to measure or even adequately 

estimate impacts of food production on soil, rangeland, wetlands and other ecosystems.

Agricultural land use (e.g. crops and pasture) accounts for 33 % of the land on the planet. 

However, if one eliminates uninhabitable areas—deserts, mountains, lakes, rivers, cities and 

highways, etc.—then the land used for food production represents 58 % of the planet. After 

1960 with the advent of the green revolution, the amount of land cleared for food production 

increased about 0.4 % per year. Over the past 10 years, however, the habitat lost for food 

production has increased to 0.6 % per year (Clay 2010 based on FAOSTAT). The increased 

encroachment of food production on natural habitat is probably caused by three factors—

increased demand for food due to increased consumption; an overall decline in productivity 

gains through plant breeding and genetics; and the incorporation of poorer soils for farming that 

are cleared, farmed and more quickly abandoned. In the last 150 years, for example, farmers 

and ranchers on the planet have lost more than half of all topsoil from farmed areas. This 

means that they are losing organic matter at a faster rate than they are increasing it.

One message is clear—we are running out of land to produce food precisely at the time when 

we need to be producing more to meet increasing global demand. And, the state of other inputs 

is no better. Water is increasingly scarce in many parts of the world and water scarcity will be 

accentuated by climate change. Soil amendments such as phosphate are also in short supply 

with known sources expected to be exhausted by +/- 100 years. 

Another message should be clear—whatever levels of impact are acceptable with 6.8 billion 

people will not be acceptable with more than 9 billion if we want to retain a living planet. 

So, the question that comes to mind is, on a finite planet, should consumers have a choice 
88

about sustainable products, or should all products on the shelf be sustainable? And if 

consumers shouldn’t have a choice, should companies?

Some Key Myths About Food 

If we are to be strategic about food and the future, we need to understand clearly what the 

constraints are. There is general consensus about per capita income levels, population, and 

consumption trends. We have begun to see some similarities in the different models about the 

impact of agriculture on climate change. There is even consensus that there will be no silver 

bullet regarding how we feed the planet in the future (see Clay 2010). In fact, there is general 

agreement that there are likely to be seven or eight “Food Wedges” (similar to the energy 

wedges that will help wean us from petroleum) that will allow us to feed everyone. These 

include genetics, better management practices (BMPs), technology, waste, property rights, 

degraded land, changes in consumption, and carbon. While none of them will be sufficient by 

themselves, most analysts think that collectively they could solve our food production problems. 

Unfortunately, there are a number of myths that influence public opinion and public policy in 

some countries that make it harder for us to focus on real issues as well as concrete strategies 

and actions. These myths are based more on assumptions and ideology than data and science. 

We must get past the myths if we are going to find solutions to our food issues. Thus it is 

important to be on the same page about myths vs. realities. 

In my experience the following myths need to be addressed if we are to address the key issue 

of our day—preparing the groundwork for feeding 9 billion people while maintaining a living 

planet.

Myth 1—Most agricultural production is traded across international boundaries.

More than 90 % of all foodstuffs are consumed in the country in which they are produced (Clay 

2010). At the turn of the century around 6 % of agricultural production was traded across 

borders. By the end of the decade the portion had increased to about 8 %. So while global trade 

is increasing, it is still only a small portion of total production.

However, international trade, even at the level of 6-8 percent is sufficient to reduce much of the 

volatility of global price fluctuations. Only a handful of countries account for most of the surplus 

production that is exported—Australia, Brazil, Canada, Thailand, Ukraine, and the United States 

(US). 

Myth 2—Most globally traded agricultural raw materials are produced in developing countries.

On balance, most globally traded agricultural products are still produced in developed countries. 

As a whole, developing countries are net food importers. However, some shifts are occurring. 

The European Union (EU), for example, is exporting fewer foodstuffs by volume than in the 

past. And, exports from Brazil in particular, and South American countries more generally, have 

increased considerably both in volume and value. 
89

(Source: FAOSTAT)

The most significant food product category where production is shifting is meat. Developing 

countries now produce more meat than developed countries, and by 2050 developing countries 

are expected to produce 70 % or more of meat globally (see chart below). Brazil is currently the 

largest exporter of beef and usually a close second for chicken and fourth for pork. As global 

trade increases, it is likely that over time meat will increasingly be traded as well. For example, 

China will likely increase imports of meat rather than soy from Brazil and avoid some of the 

pollution associated with animal production.

However, one product category where both production and exports are dominated by 

developing countries is aquaculture. While China represents some 70 % of global production, 

Asia produces some 90 % of all aquaculture product and developing countries dominate exports 

(Clay 2008a). This trend is likely to continue, though, as developing country income increases 

along with the consumption of seafood.
90

Source: Clay based on FAO fisheries and aquaculture data, 2009.

Myth 3—Most people eat a wide range of foods

As shown in the table below, only a handful of crops account for most of the calories consumed 

by people. Ironically, it is some of these same crops that provide much of the feed for pigs and 

chicken and that supplement grasses and other feeds for beef and dairy. 

Most people on the planet obtain their nutrition, by contrast, from a wide range of leafy greens, 

vegetables and fruits. All of these sources of nutrition, however, represent considerably less 

than 10 % of the calories most people consume annually. 

Year

1974 1984 1994 2004

Aquaculture Production (mt x 10

6

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Developing Nations

Developed Nations
91

Ranking by Daily Caloric Intake

Food Crop Total Crop Calories (2003) Direct Consumption Indirect 

(Animal 

Protein) 

Consumption

___________________________________________________________________________

1 Wheat 559 518 41

2 Rice 541 541 --

3 Corn 372 152 220

4 Sugarcane & Sugar beets 244 244 --

5 Soybeans 180 108 72

6 Potatoes 60 60 --

7 Palm Oil 57 57 --

8 Barley 49 8 41

9 Sorghum 45 32 13

10 Sunflowers 44 30 14

11 Cassava 43 43 --

12 Rapeseed 40 28 12

13 Peanuts 39 39 --

14 Cotton Seed Oil 11 -- --

___________________________________________________________________________

(Source: Global Insight 2010)

Myth 4—Reducing the consumption of animal protein, and red meat in particular, would ensure 

that there is sufficient food for all.

In 2000, all sources of animal protein represented just 12.6% of the average global diet of 2,712 

calories (Global Insight 2010). While beef represented 1.3 % of all calories consumed by 

humans, the two largest sources of calories from animal protein were dairy, the single largest 

contributor with 4.6 % followed by pork with 4 %. By 2050, all sources of animal protein will 

represent 16 % of global calories. Dairy, poultry and eggs will increase the most during this 

period with eggs nearly doubling, mostly due to increased income in India. An interesting side 

issue is the projected 15 % decline in the importance of cereal toward the average overall 

calories of 3,226 in the diet by 2050 (Global Insight 2010). This clearly will contribute to the 

overall increase in the production and consumption of animal protein.
92

Cereals

41.0%

Sugar & Sweeteners

9.1%

Vegetable Oils

15.0%

Dairy

5.3%

Fish

1.0%

Eggs

2.3%

Other

5.5%

Fruits

3.0%

Vegetables

2.5%

Pork

3.6%

Beef

1.2%

Poultry

2.6%

Pulses

1.7%

Oilcrops

1.9%

Starchy Roots

4.3%

Total Calories Delivered Per Capita Per Day in 2050

World Average 3,226

Cereals

47.7%

Sugar & Sweeteners

8.6%

Other

4.8%

Vegetable Oils

10.9%

Fish

0.9% Dairy

4.6%

Eggs

1.1%

Starchy Roots

5.5%

Oilcrops

1.7%

Pulses

2.0%

Poultry

1.7%

Beef

1.3%

Pork

4.0%

Vegetables

2.6%Fruits

2.7%

Total Calories Delivered Per Capita Per Day in 2000

World Average 2,712
93

Myth 5—Income from agriculture and food production is declining in most countries.

Income from agriculture is actually stable or increasing in most countries. 

Myth 6—Buying locally is the most significant way to reduce GHGs from food production.

A common assumption is that buying local is the best way to reduce GHGs. This is one of the 

more persistent food myths. Unfortunately, it shapes public opinion and increasingly public 

policy as well. In fact, as the graph below shows, for the eight major food groups, how a product 

is produced is far more important than how far it is transported or the GHGs associated with 

From: N Loder, E. Finkel, C. Meisner and P. Ronald. “The Problem of What to Eat” 

Conservation. July-September 2008 9(3):31

refrigeration and storage. As a result, purchasing frozen and ocean-shipped New Zealand lamb 

in England can contain fewer embedded GHGs than lamb produced in England where 

conditions for producing lamb are more energy intensive. 
94

Myth 7—The price of food is increasing.

Expenditures on food as a percentage of income is actually decreasing in most countries. In the 

US and the EU people spend less than 10 % of their income on food and some 40 %of that is 

for eating out. That said, the poorest billion people on the planet can spend up to 60 to 70 % of 

their income on food and still go hungry. And, it has been for some time. 

Myth 8—The price of food covers the cost of resources it takes to produce it.

In fact, today the price of food does not include the true cost of production. It does not, for 

example, cover the cost of soil erosion, biodiversity loss, deforestation or other habitat loss, 

GHG emissions, various other forms of pollution, or water use.

In fact, water use illustrates this point. The following table shows how much raw material it takes 

to make each of four popular products, how much water it takes to produce that amount of raw 

material and how much the farmer was paid for that amount of raw material. Leaving aside 

whether the water is significant or not (e.g. rainfed vs. irrigated, water-scarce region vs. waterabundant region), what is clear from this chart is that if farmers had to pay for water, their costs 

of production could easily exceed the total amount they are paid for their product. In some 
95

cases, if farmers paid a reasonable price for water, it would likely exceed the entire amount they 

are paid for their raw material. 

As water becomes more scarce, at least in some regions, and as the carbon emissions 

associated with moving water have to be addressed, then producer costs will change moving 

forward. For animal producers, this will likely be a very serious issue. Just as it takes pounds of 

feed to make a pound of animal protein, water will be similarly compounded. For example, the 

amount of water embedded in the feed for poultry is easily 10 times more than the amount of 

water to produce and process the birds themselves.

Selected Products, Water Use and Farmer Income 

Raw Material Input Water to Produce Input Farm Gate 

Price

____________________________________________________________________________

1 Cotton T-shirt 4 oz ginned 500 to 2,000 US$0.20

liters of water (Aust.)

1 Liter of soda 6 T sugar 175 to 250 US$0.006

liters of water (Brazil)

1 oz. slice of cheese 6 oz milk 40 liters of water US$0.03 (US)

1⁄2 pound hamburger 8 oz hamburger 3,000 to 15,000 US$0.25 (US)

liters of water

____________________________________________________________________________

Source: Clay 2010

Better Management Practices

Better management practices are those practices that farmers use to increase production,

reduce costs, reduce waste or impacts, and increase profits. Which BMP’s are “better” depends. 

There is no one size fits all list of BMPs. BMPs are constantly evolving—mostly as farmers try to 

solve problems, save money, increase production, or make higher profits. Today’s BMP is 

tomorrow’s norm, and the day after that it is the practice that is being eliminated.

Most BMPs are invented by farmers and then adapted and adopted by others. For the most part 

public policies do not encourage better practices, much less improved performance. 

Increasingly, however, some government agencies globally are beginning to look at how they 

can encourage producers to adopt BMPs to either reduce key impacts or increase productivity 

or product quality. For the most part, however, public policies have not been driven by the same 

goals as those of producers, traders, retailers, brands or even NGOs. To reduce key impacts, it 

would be helpful if the policies of public and private institutions were mutually reinforcing. For 

example, if government policies, permits, and regulations encouraged the reduction of the same 

impacts as those identified and addressed in private voluntary standards and purchase or 

investment conditions, then it would be easier to shift the entire performance curve for any given 

commodity, at least in the country in question. However, consensus about the most significant 

impacts is key in this approach.
96

Government permits and regulations aimed at reducing key impacts can encourage the 

adoption of specific practices that tend to encourage the development of next generation BMPs 

but only if the focus is on performance rather than practices. This approach encourages 

innovation rather than compliance (e.g. the adoption of a specific practice). Still, in the 

information age, there is tremendous room for improvement. At this time, it can take 8 to 10 

years to identify BMPs developed by producers, test them, adapt them to different growing 

conditions, undertake proper field trials, publish the results, and then disseminate them. This all 

takes far too long—at some point the BMP in question has already been superseded by a 

newer, better one.

What is also clear is that many, if not most, BMPs pay for themselves. That is, they repay the 

initial investment immediately or within a short time. In fact, if properly sequenced so that the 

profitable ones precede the ones that have a net producer cost, the financial impact over time of 

adopting a range of BMPs can usually be positive or at least neutral, although this varies by 

commodity and place.

Even with the best genetics, seed technology and inputs, BMPs can result in widely differing 

results. The results depend on the crop, farmer capacity and local conditions (e.g. soils, water, 

temperature, etc.). In the end, if you give 100 farmers the same BMP (see figure), you will get a 

hundred different results. If all the farmers live in the same area, use the same technology, have 

the same background and more or less the same local conditions, the range of performance will 

be less than it will be globally. However, the range will always exist and even in a local region 

the best producer can be two to ten times as productive as the worst. Globally the best 

producers can be 100 times better than the worst. Eco-labels tend to focus on rewarding the 

best producers, and governments tend to focus on regulating the worst. From a food production 

and environmental perspective, however, it is probably far more important to move the worst 

producers and even the middle ones rather than the best ones. By focusing on the performance 

of producers at both the top and the bottom ends of the performance curves, the entire curve 

can be shifted (see graph). 

Source: Clay 2008.

Performance Curve

1

Regulation

Performance

Shift

Best 

Performance
97

The two photos that follow show rather dramatically the impact of better practices. These photos 

were taken less than a mile apart on the same day. The management represented by the photo 

on the right produces 4 times more head of cattle and 6 times more meat than the one on the 

left. Incidentally, the system on the right also manages water and carbon better and provides 

critical habitat for wildlife as well. As markets develop for water, carbon and biodiversity, the 

value of the management as represented by the photo on the right will increase.

It’s How to Think, Now What to Think—Efficiency in the Poultry Industry

The poultry industry is an interesting example of how we have traditionally thought about animal 

production and efficiency. Four key factors have driven thinking about increasing efficiency 

while reducing costs and increasing competitiveness. These involve feed conversion ratios 

(FCRs), mortality rates, time to market, and finished weight. As the table below illustrates, 

dramatic gains have been made in each of the four categories. Many of the improvements are 

mutually reinforcing, e.g. reduced mortality improves FCR. Likewise, FCR, age to market and 

live weight at harvest are all mutually reinforcing. At the end of the day, however, the cumulative 

impact of these different improvements with regard to the overall efficiency of resource use 

increased more than 7 times between 1925 and 2005.
98

Global Poultry – Evolution of Efficiency Over Time

___________________________________________________________________________

Chicken – Improvement Evolution

1925 1945 1965 1985 2005

Feed conversion

– kg feed/kg live 4.7 4.0 2.4 2.0 1.8

Mortality % 18% 10% 6% 5% 4%

Age to market (days) 112 84 63 49 42

Live commercial weight 

– kg 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.4

____________________________________________________________________________

Source: Dr. Paul Aho, The World Chicken Meat Industry 1984 to 2004. May 2004. Power point 

presentation.

This type of performance metrics lends itself to benchmarking and to continuous improvement 

of not only a sector but individual producers as well. The data lend themselves to open source 

databases that allow individual producers or producers within a country or a region to compare 

themselves to others. What the data in such a table does not do is show producers how these 

results have been achieved (or their financial implications) or what the range of performance is 

around the world on any given issue much less all of them combined. In the end, the question is 

Do such improvements in efficiency actually improve margins or simply allow producers to stay 

in business? Such data also can help to identify comparative advantage where it exists. What 

the table also suggests, however, is how many issues that are important today are not included 

in the table. Science and global thinking about such issues shift over time. For example, carbon 

and water are increasingly important issues. How much water does it take to produce and 

process a kilogram of chicken? How much water does it take to produce the feed that it takes to 

produce a kilo of chicken? How much CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents) does it take to 

produce a kilo of chicken? And, similarly, how much CO2e does it take to produce the feed? 

How much if the land to produce soy is recently cleared forest?

Other issues have come into sharper focus as well. Some of these involve the use of scarce 

resources or resources that are now seen to be used when needed rather than prophylactically. 

For example, how much fishmeal or oil is used to produce a kilo of chicken? How many 

antibiotics or other medications have been used?

On a planet with finite resources, however, another measure of efficiency and productivity might 

be how much land or water does it take to produce a thousand calories from chicken or 100 

grams of protein?

The only thing we can be certain of is that expectations regarding efficiency as well as science 

and metrics will change as we go forward. However, it is doubtful that many of the old metrics 

will be abandoned. Rather, additional ones will be added. And, the new metrics may be 

requirements for access into some markets or to reduce risk with financiers.
99

Animal Breeding, Feed Palatability, and Genetics 

An area of research that will result in a net increase in available calories is genetics, both animal 

breeding as well as plant materials used for feed. Regarding animal genetics, breeding 

programs for animals still have not been able to take advantage of mapping genomes and using 

genetic engineering to select for key traits. At some point this will become the norm as it will be 

much quicker than the traditional breeding programs in addressing new issues and constraints 

as they arise.

Most research on feed to date has focused on reducing anti-nutritionals in feed sources such as 

soy and increasing the palatability of feed and FCRs, rather than in changing the animals

themselves. In aquaculture, there are efforts to increase the Omega 3s in soy so that it can 

substitute for fish meal and fish oil. However, this is complicated because soy reportedly has 

nearly 70 anti-nutrients for fish. Unfortunately, what is an anti-nutrient for one species is not 

necessarily so for another. And, the issue is not just about nutrition. There also is considerable 

work being undertaken at this time to reduce the amount of methane produced by livestock to 

reduce their GHG emissions.

As the productivity focus incorporates FCRs, carbon, nutrition and a variety of other efficiency 

measures, it is likely that aquaculture will receive more attention. Some animal protein market 

experts predict that poultry and tilapia will be head to head fighting for market share by 2050. 

After that, lower trophic-level fish such as tilapia, pangaseus or catfish are expected to win the 

“white meat” battle. In China, carp production already equals that of poultry, and aquaculture 

production is twice that of poultry (Clay 2008).

It’s Important to Get the Metrics Right

The metrics that are the most common for crops are bushels per acre or metric tons (MTs) per 

hectare (ha). For pasture animals the focus is usually on carrying capacity of the land or 

pasture, e.g. head per hectare. We need to get the metrics right. If we are talking about food, 

food security and feeding the planet, then calories per hectare is a far more meaningful 

measure than head of animals, kilos, bushels, or tons. The issue of how many calories are 

produced on average per hectare of crop production or for animals is more difficult to calculate 

because the type of information needed is generally not collected. For animals, this is especially 

difficult because heads of animals are not easily converted into weight much less calories. By 

contrast a MT of a cereal is relatively easily converted to calories.

You manage what you measure, but producing anything has thousands of impacts. So, what 

should we measure? Here are some questions that might guide our thinking about meaningful 

metrics for animal protein.
100

* Kg of meat per ha of land 

* Kg of meat per cubic meter (M3) of water

* Calories per ha

* Net human edible calories (e.g. calories out less the calories from human edible feeds)

* Grams of protein per ha

* Net grams of protein

* Cost of production per calorie of production 

* Kg of C avoided or sequestered /ha or /MT of production

Calories per hectare or grams of protein are efficiency measures. Other measures that are also 

important are calories per liter of water and calories per other important inputs (e.g. nitrogen (N), 

phosphorus (P), potassium (K), pesticides, etc.). The importance of these measures, however, 

depends on how limiting the input factor is. Calories per liter of water in an area with plenty of 

rainfall is not terribly important whereas calories per liter of water in a desert or dry climate is 

very important.

As the markets for carbon mature, carbon sequestered per 1,000 calories produced will likely be 

another useful metric. And, as biomass becomes important for making biofuels or other 

products, biomass will also be an important performance metric. The issue here is that the 

relative productivity between crops is likely to become important as resource scarcity impairs 

production. Which sources of protein are “better”? Which feed stuffs are “better”? What are the 

key parameters? How will they vary depending on location and growing conditions? Going 

forward, the goal will most likely not be to maximize any single performance indicator (e.g. 

calories per unit of land, water or N), but rather to optimize a range of indicators. In this sense, it 

is likely that an index of several key performance areas may be the most useful way to think 

about which crops are “better” and which production systems are most efficient.

In 1995, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Consultative Group on International 

Agricultural Research (CGIAR) reported that four crops provided 73 % of the calories consumed 

by humans directly—rice, wheat, maize and cassava (The Washington Post, 1995). Potatoes, 

sorghum, bananas, and sweet potatoes provided another 17 %. By 2010, just 8 crops provide 

80 to 85 % of all calories. The increase in demand for these eight crops from 1974 to 1994 

increased by an average of 72 % while the average amount of land under cultivation increased 

by an average of 39 %. In short, increases in production were accomplished more by expansion 

than by intensification.

Using 2008 FAO data (see table below), it is possible to compare total production per hectare, 

human edible calories produced per hectare, and the volume of water required to produce one 

kilogram of product. This is the type of information that will be necessary to compare (all else 

being equal) the relative advantage of producing one crop or another in any given place. These 

are global averages, however, and we know that many crops cannot be substituted for each 

other because of their temperature, water or soil requirements. Adding other key inputs such as 

energy, N, P, K, and labor would also be helpful in any attempt to determine which foods are the 

most efficient producers of calories.
101

Yield, Calories and Water Requirements for Selective Crops

____________________________________________________________________________

Commodity Yield (kg/ha) Calorie Conversion Average Water to produce 

1 kg of commodity

Wheat 3,086.1 6.62918 x 1019 1300 liters

Rice 4,309.4 9.25692 x 1019 3400 liters 

Maize 5,109.4 1.09754 x 1020 900 liters

Sugarcane 71,510.2 1.54 x 1021 1500 liters

Soy 2,384.1 5.12123 x 1019 x

Potatoes 17,267.6 3.70921 x 1020 900 liters

Oil palm 14,079.5 3.02438 x 1020 x

Barley 2,776.6 5.96435 x 1019 1300 liters

Sorghum 1,459.1 3.13426 x 1019 2800 liters

Sunflowers 1,424.3 3.05951 x 1019 x

Cassava 12,460.4 2.67659 x 1020 x

Rapeseed 1,908.8 4.10025 x 1019 x

Nuts 1,357.5 2.91601 x 1019 x

Bananas 18,828.2 4.04444 x 1020 x

Sweet potatoes 13,466.6 2.89273 x 1020 x

Yams 10,497.2 2.25488 x 1020 x

Plantains 6,370.8 1.3685 x 1020 x

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: FAO, 2008, http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor

Source for water comparison: http://www.waterfootprint.org/

While animal protein production and production efficiency have increased substantially during 

the past 40 years this has been limited more to animal-intensive operations such as (CAFOs)

(concentrated animal feeding operations) and in particular poultry and pork operations. Grass 

fed animals have not intensified at the same rate and in some key producing countries such as

Brazil, the intensity of grass-fed beef operations has remained constant for the past 50 years. 

Given global resource scarcity, it is just a question of time before people begin to ask which 

sources of protein, much less animal protein, are the most efficient. In this regard, beef globally 

accounts for more than 60 % of all land used for food production and yet produces only 1.3 % of 

all calories. 

How Should We Think About Animal Welfare

The issue of animal welfare is becoming more important in many consumer markets globally, 

and as a result is a more politically important issue than it ever has been before. Unfortunately, 

much of the focus has been on single indicators, e.g. stocking density or cages vs. cage-free. It 

is not clear that any of these indicators are the most appropriate or important ones. In addition, 

however, animal welfare might be best understood in terms of multiple variables that might be 

evaluated individually or serve as the basis of an index.

The thinking in aquaculture might be helpful. Standards setting technical working groups for 

eight different aquaculture species have suggested several different animal welfare criteria in 

lieu of stocking density (animal density per unit of area). Some possible indicators from the 
102

aquaculture discussions are provided below. What these have in common is that they are 

overall indicators of animal wellbeing and an overall lack of stress or they speak to the quality of 

the environment:

* Feed conversion ratios

* Time to market

* Survival rates

* Disease outbreaks

* Medicine used per MT of product

* Cost of medicine per MT of product

* Water quality (e.g dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, pH, etc.).

As discussed previously, using a single indicator such as stocking density may be a less robust 

way to determine animal welfare than a method that identifies, measures and through improved 

management optimizes several indictors of the type listed above. In fact, there may be tradeoffs between indicators. So, an index that rolls all indicators into a single figure may actually 

miss poor performance in a single category. One suggestion is that for multiple indicators, 

producers could be required to have a minimal performance in all categories as well as a 

combined total average that is higher than the average of the minimal scores. 

Animal welfare, however, is not the only factor to take into account or even in need of 

maximizing. In poultry and egg production is free range sufficiently important as a variable to 

trump other key indicators of product quality, worker safety, environmental impacts or financial 

viability. For example, should we understand better the relationships among some of the 

following indicators before simply accepting free range as a requirement? Other key variables 

that might be affected by a free range mandate include:

* Consumer safety

* Product quality

* Total production

* Productivity per unit of feed, water, etc.

* Survival rates (pecking order is real!)

* Disease occurrences

* Land used directly

* Indirect global footprint (e.g. land and water compounded through feed, etc.)

* Worker health

* Profitability

Some of these indicators may be positively or negatively correlated with others on the list or 

even with free range or caged. The issue is that by focusing on only one issue we may be 

maximizing one thing at the expense of optimizing a number of other indicators, which taken as 

a whole, may be more important.

Freezing the Footprint of Food—The Concept of “Food Wedges” 

To address both the need to feed nine billion and to maintain the planet, we will need to Freeze 

the Footprint of Food. The Earth’s resources are finite. We can’t escape the basic math—

population times how much each of us consumes must equal the carrying capacity of the 

planet. If we exceed that, we are taking away not only resources but the very resource base that 
103

will be needed by our children and our grandchildren.

In fact, as noted earlier, we’re living today at the level of 1.3 planets according to the WWF’s 

Living Planet Index. This is the equivalent of eating our seed. We are very literally eating the 

planet. As “natural capital” it means that we are consuming the planet’s principle rather than 

living off its interest or bounty. So, not only do we need to do more with less, we also have to 

find ways to restore the planet at the same time.

Every use of resources has impacts. The issue going forward will be to define which impacts 

and which levels of impacts are acceptable. Right now, the single largest impact of humans on 

the planet is to produce food. And an estimated 70 % of the terrestrial part of the planet that can 

be used for food is already taken.

For the past 50 years, we have expanded food production into new areas by converting natural 

habitat for food production at the rate of 0.4 % per year. For the last decade, however, as some 

of the key developing country economies (notably China, India, Brazil, Russia and Indonesia) 

have heated up, we have been converting natural habitat for food production at the rate of 0.6 %

per year. In short we have been speeding up the conversion of natural habitat and the loss of 

biodiversity precisely when one might assume we would have been able to increase the 

intensity of production by ways other than simply expanding it.

If we assume the business as usual case for expanding into natural habitat, there will be very 

little natural habitat left by 2050. And yet, we know that global demand for food will increase. By 

2050, we will have 3 billion more people with 2.9 times as much income, consuming twice as 

much. In fact, the research suggests that in developing countries incomes are likely to 

increase more than five-fold by 2050. This will add considerable strain to the precarious balance 

between people and nature that already exists in those countries. Moreover, by 2050, 

more people will live in cities—more than are alive today. If they behave like urban residents 

today, they will depend on others for virtually all their food.
104

Source: Clay 2010

There is no silver bullet or single solution that will allow us to Freeze the Footprint of Food and 

obtain more from less. We need to work simultaneously on a number of issues. If we are 

successful in building “food wedges,” similar to the energy wedges we need to become 

independent of fossil fuels, we will find ways feed people and still have a healthy planet. Eight 

complimentary strategies would allow us to achieve both goals. They are summarized in order 

of likely importance:

1. Genetics—Ten crops account for nearly 80 to 85 percent of all calories. Only two are on track 

to double production by 2050. We can’t afford to leave genetics (e.g. traditional plant breeding, 

land races, hybrids, genetic engineering, or GMOs) off the table. We should be neutral about 

the technologies unless there are unacceptable ancillary impacts, and focus on the results 

desired.

2. Better Practices—In terms of production, the best producers globally are 100 times better 

than the worst. The best countries are 10 times better than the worst. To achieve global food 

security and maintain the planet, we will gain far more, both in terms of production and reduced 

environmental impacts, by moving the middle and the bottom than the top.

300% 300%

250% 250%

200% 200%

150% 150%

100%

2000 2025 2050

Genetics 50% Underperforming Land 25% Overconsumption 5%

Poor Management Practices 50% Property Rights 20%

Technology 40% Waste 10%
105

3. Technology—We need to use all inputs (water, fertilizer, pesticides, energy) more efficiently. 

To Freeze our Footprint we will need to double our efficiency of input use. Our goal, then, 

globally should be triple or quadruple the efficiency of input use.

4. Degraded land—Instead of expanding into new areas to farm, we need to rehabilitate 

degraded or underperforming lands. Our goal should be 100 million hectares rehabilitated and 

brought back into full production by 2030 and 250 million hectares by 2050.

5. Property rights—What farmer will plant a tree or invest in sustainability if they don’t own the 

land? What company will invest in new technologies if their intellectual property is not 

protected? We need to pursue strategies that address both these issues. Perhaps foreign 

assistance could be linked to guaranteed property rights rather than other factors.

6. Waste—Globally we waste as much as 30 to 40 percent of all food produced. It is a crime to 

waste food once we use resources to produce it. Our goal should be to cut waste in half in both 

developing and developed countries. To do this, we should double the percentage of funding to 

reduce post-harvest losses and food waste. 

7. Overconsumption—A billion people don’t have enough food while a billion people eat too 

much. A reasonable goal would be not only to freeze these figures, so they do not increase, but 

ideally to cut them each in half by 2030.

8. Carbon—Whether in the soil, unburnt crop residue, protected riparian areas and wetlands or 

perennial crops or trees, carbon makes agriculture more sustainable. Our goal should be to 

develop carbon markets that allow food producers to sell one billion MT of carbon per year by 

2030. This will not only make food production more sustainable but will also make producers 

more financially viable.

In short, while no single strategy will solve the global food problem or ensure global food 

security, there is something that each of us as individuals or institutions can do, and together we 

can find ways to address this issue. We need to question current thinking and existing 

strategies. As has been demonstrated throughout this presentation, business as usual will not 

get us where we need to go. We need to invest time, energy, and money into this. Failure, either 

for people or the planet, is simply unacceptable. No one has all the answers, but together we 

can solve this problem and leave our children a living planet. 

References and Suggested Reading

Brown, L., 2002. “Water deficits growing in many countries—water shortages may cause food 

shortages.”

Brown, L and B. Halweil, 1998. “China’s Water Shortage Could Shake World Grain Markets.” 

Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute.

Burger, M., 2009. “Development: Water Gap to Widen Dramatically by 2030. Washington DC: 

Institute for Policy Studies.
106

Clay, J. W., 2004. World Agriculture and the Environment: A Commodity by Commodity Guide 

to Impacts and Practices. Washington DC: Island Press.

Clay, J. W., 2008. The Role of Better Management Practices In Environmental Performance. In 

C.S. Tucker and J. Hargreaves. Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture.

Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell. Pp. 55-72.

Clay, J. W., 2008a. Aquaculture: Greening the Blue Revolution. World Wildlife Fund Spring 

Report--2008. Washington DC: WWF. Pp. 50-55.

Clay, J. W., 2009. The Political Economy of Water and Agriculture. In Water and Agriculture: 

Implications for Development and Growth. Washington DC: SAIS. Pp. 29-37.

Clay, J. W., 2010. Agriculture from 2000 to 2050—The Business as Usual Scenario. 

Washington, DC: The Global Harvest Initiative. March 17.

EAERE, 2009. “World Supply and Demand of Food Commodity Calories.” 

http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/EAERE/2009/725/Supply_Demand_EAERE_2009.pdf 

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 2007. “Fighting Global Warming with Food.” July. New 

York, NY: EDF.

The Financial Times, 2010. “Building Bricks.” The Financial Times. January 18.

Global Insight, 2010. “The 2050 Demand Analysis.” PPT presentation at the National Press 

Club. Washington DC: Global Harvest Initiative. March 17.

Kader, Adel, 2009. Capturing Full Value of the Supply Chain: Reducing Postharvest Waste. 

Presentation made at the Global Harvest Initiative Symposium. September 22, 2009.

Loder, N, et al., 2008. “The Problem of What to Eat.” Conservation. July-September 9(3):31

Madison, A., 2009. Historical data on GDP. http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/ 

Orr, S., A. Cartwright and D. Tickner, 2009. Understanding Water Risks—A Primer on the 

Consequences of Water Scarcity for government and Business. WWF Water Security Series 4. 

Godalming, UK: WWF.

Reilly, J., et al., 2001. Agriculture: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and 

Change for The United States. The US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of 

Climate Variability and Change, US Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University 

Press.

Rosegrant, M., Z. Cali and S. Cline, 2003. World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with 

Scarcity and Global Water Outlook to 2025—Averting the Impending Crisis. Washington, DC: 

IFPRI.
107

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2009. Year Book. SIPRI.

Sundquist, B., 2000. “Topsoil loss—Causes, effects, and implications: A global perspective.”

The Washington Post, 1995. Feed a hungrier World, February 13.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), 2002. Virtual Water Graphics. 

http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article186.html.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), 2009. The Environmental Food Crisis. UNEP. 

February.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Curtural Organization (UNESCO), 2003. Water for 

People, Water for Life. http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr1/index.shtml, 10.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), 2007. Land Use Database. FAO 

STAT.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), 2008. Global Agriculture. FAO 

Website. 

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.

pdf.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), 2009a.“1.02 billion people hungry: 

One-sixth of humanity undernourished—more than ever before.” FAO Website. June 2009.

2009b How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome, Italy: UN FAO. See 

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_20

50.pdf; 

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), 2010. Website definitions for 

biotech terms. http://www.fao.org/biotech/index_glossary.asp. 

United Nations Population Fund, 2005. “Press Release—World Population to Increase.” 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/pop918.doc.htm 

World Bank, 2008. “Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture.” World Bank 

Development Report 2008. Washington DC: The World Bank.

World Wildlife Fund, 2008. The Living Planet Report. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund.

World Wildlife Fund, 2008a. Zero Net Deforestation by 2020: A WWF Briefing Paper. Gland, 

CH: WWF International. 

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_2020_zero_net_deforest_brief.pdf

Yahoo.com, 2010. Web information on GDP and economic growth. 

http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20091121/836/tbs-india-will-be-among-top-three-econom.html
108

Trade considerations and OIE guidelines

Phil Seng

US Meat and Export Federation

Paper not provided. See power point section for slides.
109

Are the poor a recognized stakeholder?

Joseph Glauber

USDA Chief Economist

Paper not provided. See power point section for slides.
110

Are farmers and rural communities destined to be second-class 

citizens? 

Paul Lasley

Iowa State University

The organizers of this conference are to be commended for addressing such an important broad 

set of issues that holds substantial influence on how livestock production is structured in the 

future. The attendance and interest in this conference, “Sustainable Animal Agriculture: 

Balancing Bioethical, Economic and Social Issues” reflects the broad range of stakeholder 

concerns about animal agriculture. My participation is to ensure that the social or human 

dimensions are adequately covered. Being the last speaker at the conference is challenging to 

wrap up the common themes and not be too redundant of what has already been covered. How 

society defines the role of animals in feeding the world and what is expected of producers will 

affect the structure of agriculture and the fate of many rural communities. A common theme 

throughout the conference is the relationships between all classes of animals and society are 

changing and this includes livestock, companion animals, wildlife, zoo animals or research 

animals. Not only are the relationships between people and animals being redefined, but 

animal welfare is one of those issues that demand careful and thoughtful reflection. No longer 

is animal care just the sole providence of the owner. 

As a rural sociologist, I’ve studied long term trends in production agriculture, and none are more 

germane to the future of farming than how animals are raised and processed. I was raised on a 

small family farm in Missouri, one that wasn’t big enough to make a full-time living, but too big to 

be considered a hobby. Our farm was typical of most farms in the area, producing a mix of 

crops and livestock. Owing to the trends in specialization brought about by economies of scale, 

most of the general family farms have been replaced by larger more specialized farms, in which 

many farms no longer have animals. The presence of livestock on farms---which was once a 

common feature---is now the exception rather than the rule. 

I was asked to address whether farmers and rural communities are destined to become secondclass citizens, and part of the answer depends on how we produce and utilize animals in 

meeting the needs of the global human family. I interpreted the concept of “second class 

citizen” as being poor. Whether livestock producers and rural communities that support the 

livestock industry are destined to be poor depends on how the broader public rewards livestock 

production or what types of regulations are developed concerning livestock production.

There are many explanations for accounting for why people are poor. Some of the reasons 

include: they don’t work hard enough, they are poor managers, they fail to invest in themselves 

or their businesses, and they often are viewed as lazy or unmotivated. While each of us can 

find examples to confirm these stereotypes, in the main, farmers often have found themselves 

poor or marginalized by the impersonal market forces. In some instances it is because 

consumers no longer desire what the farmers are producing, and this decline in demand results 

in lower prices. If the producer does not adjust, then profit and income loss will result. For 

example, lard-type hogs that were once highly prized when lard was the preferred cooking oil 

are no longer demanded by consumers. Producers who failed to use the new lean-type hogs 

have found themselves with faltering demand. These shifts in market demand for what 
111

consumers want or desire can provide a glimpse into the future of animal agriculture. Today, 

some consumers are expressing their desire for free-range livestock, organic meats, cage-free 

eggs or milk free from synthetic hormones. These demands emanate from consumer 

perceptions that these products are somehow superior to conventionally produced products. 

Other producers are structurally disadvantaged because they are not large enough to achieve 

economies of scale to compete effectively in the marketplace. In other situations farmers are 

denied market access for their products or can not successfully negotiate a marketing contract. 

Increasingly, market access is a growing concern throughout agriculture. For many 

commodities, a marketing contract must be secured before the commodity is produced. 

In our not-so-distant past, animals were much more central in everyday life for most Americans. 

When the majority of Americans lived on farms and most farms had a variety of animals and 

fowl, and horses were the dominant mode of farm power and transportation, there was a closer 

connection between humans and animals. Before the 1930s the majority of Americans lived on 

farms or were only a generation removed from farming. In this agrarian culture, farming and 

rural life were closely integrated, and animal husbandry was embedded into their everyday lives. 

When people were dependent on animals for daily transportation or power, they were careful to 

take care of the horses. A lame or sick horse meant that the crops wouldn’t be planted, or that 

other serious consequences would happen.

However, the twin forces of urbanization and industrialization have inexplicably altered the 

culture of agriculture and served to sever the relationship between animals and people. No 

longer do we rely on animals for power or transportation, and with increasing specialization 

many farms no longer have animals. Hence even within farm communities there are not the 

shared values, beliefs, and shared culture about animals and animal care that once existed. 

The new rural paradigm that has emerged since World War II, in which the majority of rural 

residents are no longer dependent upon farming for a living, stands in stark contrast to the 

agrarian paradigm of the preceding era. Today those who choose to live in rural America often 

have a different set of values about rural life, farming, and livestock, and can be defined as 

“guests of the country.” These new-to-rural folks bring new values and beliefs about rural living, 

agriculture, and demand for services that are different than the beliefs of life-long residents or 

farm operators.

Understanding the future of animal agriculture requires that it be placed in the broader context 

of the changing culture of agriculture. The emergence of new values about animals, placing 

greater emphasis on certain beliefs and ethical considerations, is part of the changing culture of 

farming. Questions about animal care and practices---how animals are produced, marketed and 

processed---reflects a new set of societal expectations. Questions from consumers about the 

origin of their food, how it was produced, and what practices were used or avoided are 

important considerations. The desire of some consumers to know the origins of their food, and 

their show of support for buying food locally through community-supported agriculture, farmers 

markets, and so forth are indicators of a changing set of values about the food system.

Evidence of Changed Consumption and Food Habits

While consumer food expenditures as a proportion of their total income continue to decline, 

there are some disconcerting trends in eggs, meat, and milk consumption (See Joseph 
112

Glauber’s power point presentation for recent trend data). There are many reasons for the 

declines in consumption, including an aging population; concerns about obesity, nutrition, and 

wellness; and, production practices. 

Even though the structure of agriculture has changed greatly, the basic functions of farming 

have remained the growing of plants and animals. With larger proportions of consumers far 

removed from agriculture, it is imperative that producers do a better job of communicating with 

consumers about what we do and equally important about why it is done. Reconnecting with 

consumers, providing education, and understanding the changing market demands are critical 

to answering the question about whether farmer and rural communities are destined to be poor.

The Changing Relationship between People and Animals

I believe that it is important that we make the distinction between classes of animals. At one 

time there was a clear demarcation between farm animals that were raised for food versus pets 

or companion animals. However, in recent years this distinction has become blurred and, in 

some cases, meaningless. A second trend is that the entertainment industry often assigns 

human characteristics to animals. Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics 

to non-human creatures, and there are many examples of this in the media. Old Yeller, Moby 

Dick, Lassie, the Lone Ranger’s horse Silver, Mr. Ed the talking horse, Bambi, Ms. Piggy and 

her friends on Muppets show, the Looney Tune characters Wile E. Coyote and the Road 

Runner, and Rocky and Bullwinkle are all examples of assigning human attributes to animals. 

Isn’t this a confusing message to children? Each of these characters has human attributes: in 

some cases they talk, display human emotions, and nearly always play the support role of 

helping their hapless owner or friend.

It goes without saying that most people don’t eat their pets, but many of us raised on farms did 

eat our companions. They didn’t live in our house, or share our bed, but it was understood that 

the pet lamb, calf, or pig was doomed to be sold. Even though we knew their eventual fate, we 

cared for them, talked to them, sometimes took them to the county fair, and got recognition by 

receiving ribbons or trophies. Independent of our emotional ties to them, we understood that 

they would eventually be sold and slaughtered. 

As Chair of the Department of Anthropology, I have become acutely aware of the similarity 

between humans and other high-functioning primates including bonobos and chimpanzees. My 

association with primatologists has resulted in my increased sensitivity about our duties toward 

all species of animals. Conservation and preservation of species is a responsibility that all of us 

share. But as the human population continues to grow, threatening the wild places that are 

home to many of these species, we must be more proactive in protecting them. Animal welfare 

is more than some notion of happiness, but surely we are wise enough to assess and measure 

the notion of welfare. I am not sure that science has developed a measure of animal happiness, 

but often I hear assertions that pigs are happier in one setting than another. Happiness is a 

human attribute and this argument rests on the assumption that animals can make decisions or 

choices about what they prefer. I am not sure we can make that assertion, but nevertheless all 

of us share the responsibility to ensure that all animals enjoy certain basic freedoms.
113

The Brambell Report issued in 1965 seems like a reasonable place to start the discussion on 

animal welfare. More than 40 years ago, the Brambell Commission on Animal Welfare issued a 

statement on the five basic freedoms that are applicable to all animal life:

* Freedom from hunger and thirst

* Freedom from discomfort

* Freedom from pain, injury, and disease

* Freedom to express normal behavior

* Freedom from fear and distress 

It seems to me that these five basic freedoms are at the core of animal husbandry. I am proud 

to have a bachelor’s degree in animal husbandry, not animal science. I was raised in a period 

when husbandry was a “calling.” My parents and grandparents instilled in me that caring for the 

stock was not simply good business, it was a moral act. Doing chores, feeding, watering, 

providing bedding, doing the milking, etc. took primacy over the ball game, the date, or any 

other activities that might have been on the mind of a teenager.

Perhaps livestock producers have fallen victim of the unintended consequences of renaming 

animal husbandry into animal science. On the farm, everyday producers engage in animal care 

that may not be profitable, but is a moral decision. They decide, even when cattle or hog prices 

are low, to give life to every animal born, even if it means a vet bill will exceed the cost of the 

animal. Or they decide to bottle feed an orphan even though it means the back porch is 

converted into a temporary hospice. The intention should be to provide the best possible 

comfort and assistance to every animal.

The media is full of news about animal abuse, with examples ranging from puppy mills, 

circuses, and zoos, to the hoarding of animals. For many families in our affluent society, 

animals have become surrogate children; upwards of $50 billion a year is spent on pets. While 

one can argue about spending this amount of money on pets when children in other parts of the 

world go hungry, this indicates the centrality of companion animals to many households in 

society.

The Messages that are Reported in the Media

I am concerned about the reported instances of animal abuse in the media. Often times the 

reports are biased or incomplete. One instance of animal abuse does indicate an industry-wide 

problem, but too often the story is blown out of proportion. The failure to make the distinction 

between a single case of animal abuse versus widespread abuse in the industry needs to be 

addressed. One bad case should not condemn the entire industry. I am concerned that public 

opinion is being shaped by a few celebrated cases of animal abuse. For example, all of us 

know of examples of child abuse, but none of us would ban child rearing in a particular 

neighborhood because of one bad parent. We need to have a balanced view that the vast 

majority of animal producers and processors adhere to industry standards and share the 

principles of the Brambell Commission.
114

Returning to the question posed by the organizers of this conference, are farmers and rural 

communities destined to be second-class citizens? Without livestock the answer must certainly 

be a resounding YES. Animals play an important role in the utilization of grasses and 

feedstocks not suitable for direct human consumption. Without livestock, many parts of the 

United States will stagnate and become regions of poverty. It is in the national interest that we 

seek to maintain a vibrant animal agriculture if we are to achieve the goals of sustainability.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, (October 18, 2009) announced that this decade was the 

“decade of the animal.” Several recent books have explored the relationship between humans 

and animals. Clearly the challenge is to forge a new social contract with the non-human animal

world. All of us hold a unique set of values and experiences about animals. We should be wise 

enough to find those areas of agreement across the diversity of groups and stakeholders. A 

starting place is that we seek a well-fed populace, and a stable, reliable food system that 

respects the integrity of all living things including both plants and animals. 

As I have reflected on the issues raised at this conference, the key question is, What are the 

stewardship responsibilities of mankind? Rather than approaching the question as, Where 

have we fallen short?, we need to increase our understanding and dialogue, and learn to 

cooperate. Even pigs and cows have learned the benefits of cooperation and certainly we 

would be wise to find those areas where we agree. I am convinced there is more that unites us 

than divides us. Thank you.
115

APPENDICES
116

PAGE

APPENDIX A Program and Speaker Contact Information 117

APPENDIX B CAST Animal Welfare Symposium Steering Committee 126

APPENDIX C Referenced Papers 130

1. Todd Peterson

A. What is CAST, What Can CAST Do? 131

B. Issue Papers on Livestock Carcass 134

Disposal 

C. Scientific Assessment of the Welfare 136

of Dry Sows Kept in Individual 

Accommodations

2. Greg Martin

A. Comments from the CAST 138

SurveyMonkey Questionnaire 

3. Paul Thompson

A. Ethical Implications of Animal 219

Biotechnology: Considerations 

for Animal Welfare Decision Making

4. William Weldon 236

A. World and U.S. population growth: 

How can we feed everyone?

5. Gale Buchanan 247

A. Agricultural Productivity Strategies 

for the Future: Addressing U.S. 

and Global Challenges

APPENDIX D Power Point Presentations 264

NOTES 387
117

APPENDIX A

Program and Speaker Contact Information

Morning Moderator:

Richard Reynnells, National Program Leader

Animal Production Systems

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

800 9th Street, SW, Room 3140 Waterfront Centre

Washington, DC 20250-2220

Tel: 202.401.5352

Fax: 202.401.6156

email: rreynnells@csrees.usda.gov

12:00 - 12:10 Welcome

John Ferrell

USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs

12:10 - 12:15 Welcome from CAST

Todd A. Peterson

CAST President

Winfield Solutions LLC

4800 NW 68th Place

Johnston, IA 50131-1150

Tel: 515-251-3257

email: toddpeterson@landolakes.com

12:10 - 12:40 Integration of competing concepts surrounding the ethical use of 

food animals

Wes Jamison

Palm Beach Atlantic University

Associate Professor of Communications

901 S. Flagler Drive

P.O. Box 24708-4708

West Palm Beach, FL 33416

Tel: 561-803-2468

Cell: 352-870-7914

email: wes_jamison@pba.edu
118

12:40 - 1:00 Impressions from the agricultural community regarding food-animal 

welfare and agricultural regulation

Gregory P. Martin

Extension Educator—Poultry, Southeast Region

The Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension 

1383 Arcadia Road, Room 140

University Park

Lancaster, PA 17601-3184

Tel: 717-394-6851 

Fax: 717-394-3962 

email: gpm10@psu.edu

1:00 - 1:25 Taking a look back to look forward

R. Douglas Hurt

Department Head/Professor of History

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907

Tel: 765-494-4122

email: doughurt@purdue.edu

1:25 - 1:50 Historical perspective of the integration of animal agriculture

Ronald L. Plain

Professor of Agricultural Economics and Extension Economist

College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources

University of Missouri

222 Mumford

Columbia, MO 65201

Tel: 573-882-0134

Fax: 573-884-6572

email: plainr@missouri.edu

1:50 - 2:15 Consumer trust in the U.S. food system: Implications for 

communication and regulation

Stephen G. Sapp

Department of Sociology

Iowa State University

320 East Hall

Ames, IA 50011-1070

Tel: 515-294-1403

email: ssapp@iastate.edu

2:15 - 2:30 BREAK
119

2:30 - 3:00 Redefining sustainability: Ethically grounded, scientifically verified, 

and economically viable

W. Ray Stricklin

Animal and Avian Sciences Department

University of Maryland

1413A AnSc/AgEng Building

College Park, MD 29742-2311

Tel: 301-405-1382

Fax: 301-314-9059

email: wrstrick@umd.edu

3:00 - 4:00 Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future food-animal 

systems

Charlie Arnot

CMA

7501 NW Tiffany Spring Parkway, Suite 200

Kansas City, MO 64153

Tel: 816-556-3122

email: Charlie@CMAKC.com

Janet M. Riley

Senior Vice President

Public Affairs and Professional Development

American Meat Institute/National Hot Dog & Sausage Council

1150 Connecticut Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

Tel: 202-587-4245

Fax: 202-587-4300

email: jriley@meatami.com

Jay Vroom

President

CropLife America

1156 15th Street, N.W., Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20005

Tel: 202-296-1585

Fax: 202-463-0474

email: jvroom@croplifeamerica.org
120

JUNE 9, Day 2

Morning theme: Bioethical and animal welfare issues, rural and food-animal industry 

structure

MODERATOR: Nathaniel Tablante

VA-MD Regional College of Veterinary Medicine

University of Maryland Campus

8075 Greenmead Drive

College Park, MD 20742

T#: 301.314.6810

F#: 301.935.6855

email: nlt@umd.edu

8:00 - 8:30 Ethical and practical implications of food-animal agriculture

Paul B. Thompson

Department of Philosophy

Michigan State University

503 South Kedzie Hall

East Lansing, MI 48824-1032

Tel: 517-432-8345

email: thomp649@msu.edu

8:30 - 9:30 Panel: Different perceptions of sustainable agriculture

James R. (Tres) Bailey

Senior Manager of Federal Government Relations

Walmart

701 – 8th St. NW, Ste. 100

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Tel: 202-434-0720

email: tres.bailey@wal-mart.com

Mike Morris

Manager, Poultry Health and Welfare

YUM Brands

1441 Gardiner Ln

Louisville, KY 40213-1914

Tel: 502-874-8828

email: Mike.Morris@Yum.com

Bryan Dierlam

Director, Government Affairs

Cargill

1101 15th Street NW, Ste. 1000

Washington, D.C. 20006

Tel: 202-530-8161

email: bryan_dierlam@cargill.com
121

9:30 - 10:00 Discussion with all morning speakers

10:00 - 10:30 BREAK

10:30 - 12:00 Panel: How can we move forward? The need for a collaborative 

vision

Jack Fisher

Executive Vice President

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation

280 N. High St.

6th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

Tel: 614-249-2400

email: jfisher@ofbf.org

Chandler Goule

Vice President of Government Relations

National Farmers Union

20 F St., NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202-554-1600

email: cgoule@nfudc.org

Christine Bushway

CEO/Executive Director

Organic Trade Association

Hall of the States, Suite 638

444 N. Capitol Street NW

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 413-376-1233

email: cbushway@ota.com

Joseph M. Stookey

Co-chair, North American Food Animal Well-being Commission on Beef

Western College of Veterinary Medicine

University of Saskatchewan

52 Campus Drive

Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4

Canada

Tel: 306-966-7154

email: joseph.stookey@usask.ca

12:00 - 1:30 LUNCH
122

JUNE 9, Day 2

Afternoon theme: Long-term survival and food security

MODERATOR: Candace Croney

The Ohio State University

College of Veterinary Medicine

Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine

1920 Coffey Road, A188 Sisson Hall

Columbus, OH 43210

Tel: 614-292-0974

email: candace.croney@cvm.osu.edu

1:30 - 2:00 Economic impact of transitioning from swine gestation stalls to 

group pen housing

Brian L. Buhr

Professor/Department Head

University of Minnesota

231E Classroom Office Building

1994 Buford Avenue

St Paul, MN 55108

Tel: 612-625-0231

email: bbuhr@umn.edu

2:00 - 2:30 Future welfare of farmers and their animals

John Deen

Associate Professor

Veterinary Population Medicine

University of Minnesota

385A An Sci/Vet Med

1988 Fitch Ave.

St. Paul, MN 55108

Tel: 612-625-7784

Fax: 612-625-1210

email: deenx003@umn.edu

2:30 - 3:00 BREAK

3:00 - 4:00 Panel: Comprehensive analysis of certification and regulatory 

programs: What is the future?

David Townsend

Assistant Vice President, Environmental Affairs

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

7345 Oakview St.

Shawnee, KS 66216

Tel: 913-563-7400

email: davidtownsend@smithfieldfoods.com
123

Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton

Poultry Science Department

Mississippi State University

Old Hwy 12 East

P.O. Box 9665

Mississippi State, MS 39762

Tel: 662-325-9087

Fax: 662-325-8292

email: yvizzier@poultry.msstate.edu

JUNE 10, Day 3

Morning Theme: Societal and global impacts

MODERATOR: Chuck Conner

President and CEO

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

50 F Street, NW, Ste. 900

Washington, D.C. 20001

Tel: 202-626-8700, ext. 1802

email: cconner@ncfc.org

8:00 - 8:30 World and U.S.A. population growth: How can we feed everyone?

William Weldon

Senior Director, R&D

Elanco Animal Health

2001 W. Main Street

P.O. Box 708

Greenfield, IN 46140

Tel: 317-277-5732

email: weldon_william_c@lilly.com

8:30 - 9:15 Should there be biotechnology in the future of animal agriculture?

L. Val Giddings

President 

PrometheusAB, Inc. – Advanced Expertise in US and Global 

Biotechnology

9004 Fairview Road

Silver Spring, MD 20910-4105

Tel: 202-345-3671

email: LVG@PrometheusAB.com
124

9:15 - 9:45 Agricultural productivity strategies for the future

Gale Buchanan

Retired Under Secretary, USDA/REE

Dean and Director Emeritus

College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

The University of Georgia, Tifton Campus–NESPAL

P.O. Box 748

Tifton, GA 31793-0748

Tel: 229-386-7274 (Office)

229-546-5318 (Cell)

Fax: 229-386-7371

email: galeb@uga.edu

9:45 - 10:15 BREAK

10:15 - 11:00 Sustainability myths and musts—key animal agriculture issues 

moving forward to 2050

Jason W. Clay

Senior Vice President Market Transformation

World Wildlife Fund

1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, N.W.

P.O. Box 97180

Washington, D.C. 20090-7180

Tel: 202-778-9691

Fax:

email: Jason.Clay@wwfus.org

11:00 - 11:30 Trade considerations and OIE guidelines

Phillip M. Seng

U.S. Meat Export Federation

1855 Blake Street, Suite 200

Denver, CO 80202

Tel: 303-623-6328

Fax: 303-623-0297

email: pseng@usmef.org

11:30 - Noon Discussion with all Day 3 speakers

Noon - 1:30 LUNCH
125

JUNE 10, Day 3

Afternoon Theme: Societal and global impacts

1:30 - 2:00 Are the poor a recognized stakeholder?

Joseph Glauber

Chief Economist

U.S. Department of Agriculture, OCE

Whitten Building, Rm 112-A

Washington, D.C.

Tel: 202-720-4164

email: jglauber@oce.usda.gov

2:00 - 2:30 Are farmers and rural communities destined to be second-class 

citizens?

Paul Lasley

Professor & Dept. Chair of Sociology

Iowa State University

107 East Hall

Ames. IA 50011 

Tel: 515- 294-0937 

Fax: 515- 294-0592 

email: plasleyiastate.edu 

2:30 - 3:00 General Discussion
126

APPENDIX B

CAST Animal Welfare Symposium Steering Committee

John M. Bonner (Symposium Coordinator)

Executive Vice President, CEO

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology – CAST

4420 W. Lincoln Way

Ames, IA 50014

Tel: 515.292.2125, ext. 25

Fax: 515.292.4512

email: jbonner@cast-science.org

Richard Reynnells, NPL, Animal Production Systems

USDA NIFA, PAS

800 9th Street, SW, Room 3140 Waterfront Centre

Washington, DC 20250-2220

T#: 202.401.5352

F#: 202.401.6156

email: rreynnells@nifa.usda.gov

Raymond Anthony (Philosophy) 

Department of Philosophy

University of Anchorage

3211 Providence Drive

Anchorage, AK 99508

Tel: 907.786.4459

email: ranthon1@uaa.alaska.edu

Charlie Arnot, APR (CMA)

CMA

7501 NW Tiffany Spring Parkway, Suite 200

Kansas City, MO 64153

Tel: 816.556.3122

Fax:

email: Charlie@CMAKC.com

Don Beitz

Department of Animal Sciences

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50011-3150

Tel: 515.294.

Fax: 515.294.6994

email: beitz@istate.edu
127

Candace Croney (Associate Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics)

The Ohio State University

College of Veterinary Medicine

Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine

1920 Coffey Road, A188 Sisson Hall

Columbus, OH 43210

Tel: 614.292.0974

email: candace.croney@cvm.osu.edu

Drew Giesen (FASS President)

Marketing Technical Services

Novus International Inc.

20 Research Park Dr

Saint Charles, MO 63304-5633

Tel: 314.576.8432

Fax: 314.576.2148

email: drew.giesen@novusint.com

Maynard Hogberg

Department Head

Department of Animal Sciences

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50011-3150

Tel: 515.294.2160

Fax: 515.294.6994

email: hogberg@iastate.edu

Wes Jamison (Communication, Public Relations)

Associate Professor of Communications

Palm Beach Atlantic University

901 S. Flagler Drive

P.O. Box 24708-4708

West Palm Beach, FL 33416

Tel: 561.803.2468

Cell: 352.870.7914

email: wes_jamison@pba.edu 

Fred Kirschenmann (Leopold Center)

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

209 Curtiss Hall

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50011-1050

Tel: 515.294.3711

Fax: 515.294.9696

email: leopold1@iastate.edu
128

Kelli Ludlum (American Farm Bureau Federation)

Director, Congressional Relations

AFBF

600 Maryland Ave. SW

Suite 1000W

Washington, DC 20024

Tel: 202.406.3673

Fax: 202.406.3602

email: kelli@fb.org

Sarah Muirhead (Media)

Editor and Publisher

Feedstuffs

255 38th Avenue, Suite P

St. Charles, IL 60174-5410

Tel: 630.462.2466

Cell: 612.709.5790

Fax: 630.462.2251

email: smuirhead@feedstuffs.com

Mike Olexa (Ag Law)

Food and Resource Economics

P.O. Box 110240

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611-0240

Tel: 352.392.1881 Ext 327

Fax: 352.846.0988

email: olexa@ufl.edu

Carolyn Orr (State Agriculture and Rural Leaders)

Strawridge Services

6181 W State Road 28

State Agriculture and Rural Leaders

West Lebanon, IN 47991-8054

Tel: 765.893.8209

Fax: 765.893.8286

email: corr@agandruralleaders.org

Mike Siemens

Cargill Animal Protein

Leader, Animal Welfare and Husbandry

151 North Main Street

Wichita, KS 67202

Tel: 316.291.2114 Office

Tel. 316.737.9318 Cell

email: mike_siemens@cargill.com
129

Nathaniel Tablante (Poultry Veterinarian)

VA-MD Regional College of Veterinary Medicine

University of Maryland Campus

8075 Greenmead Drive

College Park MD 20742

Tel: 301.314.6810

Fax: 301.314.6855

email: nlt@umd.edu
130

APPENDIX C

Referenced Papers
131

Appendix C

1. A. What is CAST, What Can CAST Do?
4/2010 www.cast-science.org

What Can CAST Do?  CAST, the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, can plan, organize, and host 

symposia, conferences, and workshops and publish the proceedings 

o Sustaining Animal Agriculture: Balancing Bioethical, Economic, and Social Issues. Symposium in 

Washington, D.C. June 2010 

o Water Quality and Quantity Issues for Turfgrasses in Urban Landscapes. Workshop in Las 

Vegas, Nevada. January 2006

o Management of Pest Resistance: Strategies Using Crop Management, Biotechnology, and 

Pesticides. Symposium in Indianapolis, Indiana. April 2003 

 CAST can work with other organizations to assemble writing task forces, technically edit, 

and publish scientific reports and issue papers 

o Sustainability of U.S. Soybean Production: Conventional, Transgenic, and Organic Production 

Systems. Published by CAST in conjunction with the United Soybean Board

o Avian Influenza Vaccines: Focusing on H5N1 High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (HPAI), with a 

Comprehensive Bibliography. Published by CAST in cooperation with the U.S. Agency for 

International Development

o Fate and Transport of Zoonotic Bacterial, Viral, and Parasitic Pathogens during Swine Manure 

Treatment, Storage, and Land Applications. Published by CAST for the National Pork Board 

 CAST can organize, staff, and manage programs for government agencies and other 

nonprofit organizations 

o CAST coordinated the Agricultural Biotechnology Safety Assessment Cooperation Program for 

the U.S. Trade and Development Agency 

o CAST collaborated with the Institute for Conservation Leadership on a series of Shared 

Leadership Workshops, supported by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation 

 CAST can coordinate special events

o CAST, in cooperation with USDA’s CSREES, created and administered a national agricultural 

science essay contest for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students 

o CAST hosted a series of “desk-side” telephone briefings for media personnel to speak directly 

with experts on “hot topics” in agricultural science

 CAST can network throughout the U.S. and in many countries around the world

o CAST is composed of numerous professional societies, representing more than 170,000 

individuals in academia, industry, and government

o CAST has issued more than 300 scientific reports, special publications, issue papers, and 

commentaries since its founding in 1972 by drawing together scientific experts from the U.S. and 

many foreign countries as authors and reviewers
4/2010 www.cast-science.org

What Is CAST? 

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) is a 501(c)(3) 

tax-exempt nonprofit organization based in Ames, Iowa 

 CAST assembles, interprets, and communicates credible, science-based information regionally, 

nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private 

sector, and the public 

 CAST Membership is composed of 

o Professional scientific societies 

o Associate societies 

o Sustaining companies, nonprofits, and trade organizations 

o Subscribers 

o Individuals from the United States and 19 foreign countries 

 CAST was founded in 1972 after the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council 

identified the need for better communication of the science behind food and agricultural issues 

 In 2010, CAST is celebrating 38 years of continuous service to its stakeholders 

CAST fulfills its mission through publications, projects, and sponsored activities 

 CAST publications are highly regarded as a source of science-based information written and 

reviewed by subject experts 

o Task force reports 

o Special publications 

o Issue papers 

o Commentaries 

o Spanish language translations 

 CAST “Friday Notes,” a weekly e-newsletter providing links to current resource materials 

gleaned from more than 125 sources 

 Symposia and conferences to promote communication among professionals in many disciplines 

of agricultural science 

 Education and training workshops for hands-on learning 

 International exchanges of scientific experts 

 Support for student essay contests 

 Facilitated communications among media personnel and scientific experts 

 Invited presentations at professional society meetings 

 Briefings to legislative and government personnel in Washington, D.C. 
134

1. B. Issue Papers on Livestock Carcass Disposal
• Routine mortality, catastrophic mortality, and mortality rates

• Predominant methods of mortality disposal in commercial swine production

• Alternative and nontraditional methods and technologies

• Biosecurity and disease control with traditional methods

Swine Carcass Disposal Options for Routine and Catastrophic Mortality

CAST Issue Paper 39, July 2008

Dr. Allen F. Harper, Virginia Tech Tidewater Agricultural Research & Extension Center, Chair

Issue Papers on Livestock Carcass Disposal

Poultry Carcass Disposal Options for Routine and Catastrophic Mortality

CAST Issue Paper 40, October 2008

Dr. John P. Blake, Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University, Chair

• Current and emerging practices for disposal of poultry carcasses

• Causes of catastrophic mortality and mass carcass disposal options

• Case studies of various loss situations

• Biosecurity issues

Ruminant Carcass Disposal Options for Routine and Catastrophic Mortality

CAST Issue Paper 41, January 2009

Dr. Marty Vanier, National Agricultural Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University, Chair

• Predominant methods of mortality disposal in commercial ruminant production

• Principles of the technologies

• Environmental implications

• Special considerations for material potentially infected with TSEs

All CAST Issue Papers are available for download, free of charge, at 

www.cast-science.org, click on Publications List, Issue Papers.

Current Publications on Livestock Carcass Disposal

Whether due to accidental disease entry, natural disaster, or an act of bioterrorism, widespread livestock deaths 

pose daunting carcass-disposal challenges that must be met quickly and effectively (Carcass Disposal: A 

Comprehensive Review, 2004, National Agricultural Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University).

In an effort to increase awareness and promote adoption of safe and healthy carcass disposal practices, CAST is 

publishing three separate Issue Papers targeting commodity livestock species. Each carcass disposal publication will 

provide a comprehensive summary of the scientific, technical, and social aspects of various carcass disposal 

technologies, using information gleaned from a review of the literature, including a comprehensive Kansas State University 

report.
136

1. C. Scientific Assessment of the Welfare of Dry Sows Kept 

in Individual Accommodations
Visit the CAST website at www.cast-science.org for these FREE related publications of interest:

Ruminant Carcass Disposal Options for Routine and Catastrophic Mortality (Issue Paper 41, 20 pp.) 

Poultry Carcass Disposal Options for Routine and Catastrophic Mortality (Issue Paper 40, 16 pp.) 

Swine Carcass Disposal Options for Routine and Catastrophic Mortality (Issue Paper 39, 16 pp.) 

Vaccine Development Using Recombinant DNA Technology (Issue Paper 38, 12 pp.) 

Global Risks of Infectious Animal Diseases (Issue Paper 28, 16 pp.) 

Environmental Impacts of Livestock on U.S. Grazing Lands (Issue Paper 22, 16 pp.) 

The use of individual gestation accommodations

(IGAs) for dry sows in commercial pork

production is an issue that has raised much

debate. Public perceptions and misconceptions

of welfare issues may have a dramatic impact 

on swine production if governments, the swine

industry, or consumers react to these issues

without factual scientific information. 

CAST is releasing a new Issue Paper that provides

a review of the most pertinent scientific literature

on the welfare of dry sows housed in IGAs and

critically evaluates the scientific evidence of

IGAs for sows. The nine-member international

Task Force indicates that more large-scale, onfarm, multidisciplinary research is needed before

rigid regulations should be imposed.

This new CAST Issue Paper, Scientific Assessment of the

Welfare of Dry Sows Kept in Individual Accommodations

(IP42, 20 pp.), is available FREE online at 

www.cast-science.org and in print (515-292-2125; fee for

shipping/handling). Task Force Chair: Stanley E. Curtis,

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

AQ Issue Paper from the 

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology

All CAST Issue Papers are available for download, free of charge, 

at www.cast-science.org, click on Publications List.
138

2. A. Comments from the CAST SurveyMonkey Questionnaire

Greg Martin

(edited, e.g., spell check, grammar check to facilitate easier reading)

If you recognize your comment and believe it was mis-represented, contact 

the editors for a correction.

454 responses

# Response Date Response Text

1 Mar 3, 2010 6:02 PM ok good job

2 Mar 5, 2010 7:21 PM Ballot initiatives are dangerous in that the voters, as 

experienced in California, do not really understand what 

they are voting for or what the consequences are of the 

change that will be mandated. Ballot initiatives have a real 

possibility of putting farmers and an entire state's animal 

farming out of business. Such legislation should be left to 

elected officials who have a better chance of 

understanding the consequences as well as listening to all 

points of view and considering the science that should or 

should not justify such changes.

3 Mar 5, 2010 7:53 PM Ballot initiatives, when used with an uneducated public can 

be devastating to an industry. In this case, animal 

agriculture production. It seems that people that 

understand the least criticize the most, and the general 

public does not recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing 

(HSUS). Like the rats and the Pied Piper, they're being led 

to the river to drown.

4 Mar 5, 2010 8:27 PM Ballot initiatives are not science-based and should not be 

used to force animal welfare legislation. Animal Scientists 

and Veterinarians should be key individuals in the 

development of animal welfare initiatives.

5 Mar 5, 2010 8:42 PM The education of the American public to the dangers of the 

Animal Rights movement is critical. The exposing of the 

hidden agenda should be a primary focus for the 

agricultural sector as well as those involved in national 

security. A nation that cannot feed itself due to over 

regulation driven by extremist emotion is doomed to be a 

servant to the world.
139

6 Mar 5, 2010 8:54 PM I think in general a ballot initiative would work in the 

farmers favor when the consumer is educated in its 

consequences

7 Mar 5, 2010 9:08 PM The concept of voter initiatives seems democratic; 

however, individuals cannot have an adequate 

understanding of every issue. While equally democratic, 

representative government makes elected officials 

responsible for understanding a broad range of issues. By 

having a limited number of decision makers the public is 

better able to access and educate them, resulting in better 

decisions. In a ballot initiative system the populace is 

confronted with a choice. Most don't invest the time and 

thought necessary to make the best decision. This results 

in the voter making a snap judgment at the poll. These 

decisions are the result of quick and potentially erroneous 

hearsay or advertisement supporting one perspective -

often lacking credibility. The resulting decision can lack 

balance and objectivity.

8 Mar 5, 2010 9:56 PM A group of farmers, animal livestock scientists, and 

veterinarians should determine the best animal welfare 

practices in each state. Ballot initiatives and government 

regulations not based on animal science will result in 

increased costs to produce food, less affordable safe food, 

and put farmers out of business. Any legislation needs to 

be based on sound animal science and welfare as 

described by these groups. Otherwise, the US will be 

importing unsafe food from other countries and putting 

their own farmers and ranchers out of business. In the long 

run this will ruin the US economy. Not all people can afford 

cage free eggs, organic meat, etc. As a mother, I hope our 

farmers can stay in business and continue to produce a 

safe affordable food supply. Most farmers care deeply 

about animal welfare and producing safe affordable food 

for everyone. Legislation needs to come from them and the 

veterinarians, not radical groups that will ruin our country.

9 Mar 6, 2010 1:00 PM Use of ballots tends to get out negative voters in larger 

numbers. Those in favor of more regulation tend to get out 

the vote in larger numbers. Animal welfare groups tend to 

be against helpful production practices.

10 Mar 6, 2010 5:44 PM Livestock producers who strive for viable and profitable 

farm operations are first line users and defenders of 

technologies that humanely, safely, and efficiently produce 

livestock products for human consumption.
140

11 Mar 6, 2010 6:56 PM I am highly concerned that the public will be making 

decisions based on emotions of cleverly disguised smear 

campaigns by the vegan activists.

12 Mar 7, 2010 5:40 AM These type of ballot initiatives should not be allowed since 

the goal is not really animal welfare---it is to stop food 

animal production.

13 Mar 7, 2010 5:27 PM Commodity groups need to be a leader in animal welfare 

standards. They should work with university researchers to 

stick with science based demands. They need to consider 

the unintended consequences, and seek to balance 

welfare with the environment, cost/benefit of changes to 

the producer and consumer and a heavy dose of common 

sense. Size of farms should not be the motivation. I fear 

food safety more on small farms than large.

14 Mar 7, 2010 6:29 PM Seems like some of the options in this survey weren't allinclusive. For example, one could think that animal welfare 

rules are legitimately adopted by some ballot measures but 

not others, by some legislators, and not others, by some 

trade groups, but not others. I'd bet that most people 

responding to this survey would say they don't like ballot 

measures animal welfare groups propose, but do like ballot 

measures agricultural groups propose. Or vice versa for 

some respondents, perhaps. Seems like the main question 

to ask is: are there any standard industry practices that we 

can do better on? If so, what are the alternatives to those 

practices, and what's the most realistic way to help the 

industry convert to them. Many within ag don't think there 

are any standard industry practices in need of serious 

reform, while others want to see certain innovations that 

would result in significant changes from the norm today.

15 Mar 8, 2010 2:26 AM The ones promoted by HSUS and similar groups are 

dishonest and use emotions rather than facts to persuade 

the uninformed public to support them. Ultimately, it will 

lead to higher food costs, more hunger, and more poverty.

16 Mar 8, 2010 3:08 AM I am more concerned with animal HEALTH than animal 

WELFARE. An abused animal will not be healthy. Health is 

an easy way to determine if the animal has its needs met, 

and is not as subjective as some non-farmer thinking about 

how he/she would FEEL if he/she were the animal and had 

to _________ (fill in the blank--eat corn every day, live in a 

cage, whatever).

17 Mar 8, 2010 1:00 PM Today's public is so far removed from agriculture that they 

DO NOT know where their food comes from!! Modern 

animal production practices were developed with the 
141

animal's well-being in mind. In the 1960's when my parents 

had cage free laying hens we had a lot more disease in the 

flocks due to Round Worm and Tape Worm infestations, 

Marek's disease, and other viral diseases. There is now a 

vaccine for Marek's, and since the layers are in cages and 

can't eat their own feces we do not have a round or tape 

worm problem. The current environment for animals was 

developed to reduce disease and therefore reduce the use 

of antibiotics. Animal geneticists have selected blood lines 

of various species that are better suited to today’s 

practices. Today's farmer is producing MORE with Less!

18 Mar 8, 2010 1:01 PM Regulations should be science based, not a marketing 

campaign. This is best accomplished through animal 

agriculture commissions that are composed of industry and 

academia veterinarians and scientists.

19 Mar 8, 2010 2:03 PM If we could eliminate the use of paid petition carriers we 

would save huge amounts of money to fight these 

ridiculous ballot issues in Ohio. No one should be able to 

get paid to collect names on a petition. This is a must!

20 Mar 8, 2010 2:24 PM We must educate consumers from the agricultural 

standpoint in order to sustain animal agriculture. We need 

farmers to help with this, along with commodity groups, 

Cooperative Extension, and others.

21 Mar 8, 2010 3:07 PM Government has too many problems and will only cause 

more damage to animal agriculture. Stay out of this. 

Government games and politics has already shown what 

happens with your help. Eleven percent of the people are 

out of work and now you want to starve the world.

22 Mar 8, 2010 3:07 PM The lack of knowledge of the general public of food 

production (animal and plant) is a serious challenge. Many 

people view farmers/ranchers as being totally unregulated. 

They are not aware of the many regulations that already 

exist. I also don't feel that many people promoting more 

regulations are aware of the cost impact to the final 

product OR have an alternate agenda of eliminating meat 

from the diet of most people.

23 Mar 8, 2010 3:12 PM The number of barns that would be required to meet 

California Prop 2 language is probably cost prohibitive and 

nearly impossible to accomplish due to permitting 

regulations. This is exactly what the activist groups were 

hoping for.
142

24 Mar 8, 2010 3:18 PM The law of unintended consequences will ensure that 

whatever good is intended will be equaled or surpassed by 

negative results

25 Mar 8, 2010 3:22 PM Legislators and farmers should work together to determine 

what changes need to be made. These changes should 

not incur any more costs to the producers.

26 Mar 8, 2010 3:41 PM All the regulations on farms whether at the county, state, 

national levels or a combination of all three levels is 

making it impossible for the family farm to exist in the 

United States. In our opinion as a family farm operation, 

the regulations do not help; they all hinder the farming 

process. Don't need more regulations. Need education for 

the consumer as well as the farmer.

27 Mar 8, 2010 3:44 PM These issues will become more important as the industry 

fails to regulate itself. Exposure to various negative media 

reports continues to point to the failure of present controls. 

As agriculture attempts to gain efficiency, it destroys the 

basic tenets of animal husbandry. As the public is made 

more aware of the factory farming practices used in food 

production the burden of proving the quality of these 

products will certainly prove to be most difficult.

28 Mar 8, 2010 3:45 PM Has the potential to drive production to areas with less 

restrictive regulations. Even out of the country leading to a 

decrease in food security.

29 Mar 8, 2010 3:59 PM Customers, meaning the companies purchasing beef, pork, 

chicken, turkey, eggs, lamb and other animal products will 

impact changes on the farm first. Their audits and 

requirements are often ahead of any government 

requirements. The more governmental regulations mean 

more yearly costs, forms, classes, audits and training for 

all farmers - they will need to get bigger, consolidate 

through partnerships, or exit farming. Consumers will not 

pay the increase needed to make up these costs. To date 

the "small" farmer has been exempted from much of this, 

that will have to change too. Specialty producers will also 

have to join the rest of the food producing farmers and 

comply with the regulations too.

30 Mar 8, 2010 4:06 PM Ballot initiatives are a way of short circuiting the process. 

Sound science is ignored and emotions and scare tactics 

are used that totally distort the issue. Food costs will 

skyrocket and consumers will suffer once the food system 

absorbs the shock and shuts down. It will take time (and 

lots of it) to regenerate.
143

31 Mar 8, 2010 4:13 PM If the California law is passed to only permit agricultural 

products produced outside the state to be brought into the 

state for sale a suit should be immediately filed as this is 

an obstruction of free trade. Not only is there no substantial 

scientific proof that their legislated way of production is 

better, there is substantial scientific proof that their 

legislated way is worse for the environment and food 

safety. Are we hypocrites if we dock our dog’s tails, alter 

our dog’s ears, etc. and still pass a law that makes it illegal 

to dock a dairy cow's tail? Come to think of it, should it be 

a crime to pierce the ears of a baby? Seems like baby 

cruelty to me.

32 Mar 8, 2010 4:15 PM Regretfully there are still some producers who do not 

understand the animal welfare issue and there are others 

(i.e. - consumers, politicians, and others) who think they 

know animal welfare but do not understand or work with 

animals. The animal industry must police itself if they want 

to have effective and rational requirements.

33 Mar 8, 2010 4:19 PM This was not a very good survey. (1) High concern does 

NOT imply that a problem exists, just importance (2) 

Regulation is the job of the legislative body. Decisions 

should be made based on EVIDENCE from MANY sources 

--which was not a choice. (4) Certification programs may 

be voluntary; regulations are not. They do NOT therefore, 

have the same expected effects (6-8) I don't think ballots 

themselves have much effect at all --Now OUTCOMES 

might be very different, but it sure depends...

34 Mar 8, 2010 4:38 PM Some states have a fairly weak ballot initiative process, 

those states have been targets. At the same time I believe 

that most of the ballot initiatives are good for our industry. 

Our consumers need to be told the positive story of protein 

food production on animal farms!

35 Mar 8, 2010 4:41 PM I do not believe ballot initiatives should be used to make 

changes in regulations. Only Legislative bodies of 

government should have this power.

36 Mar 8, 2010 4:45 PM Ballot initiatives/referenda are political creatures by their 

nature. As such, they must be carefully worded to truly 

reflect the need that is being addressed, and that care 

needs a cooperative dialogue to be maintained between 

regulators/legislators/industry with sources of accurate 

information (presumably including but not necessarily only 

Land Grant entities).
144

37 Mar 8, 2010 4:50 PM This is another idiotic proposal that adds another layer 

onto the already bloated infrastructure, that does nothing 

for the farmer but cause additional costs. There are 

numerous check points all the way to the market, starting 

with the shipping yards to the grocery store. It's about time 

that the government and the lawyers get out of our face 

and go back to their parasitical endeavors elsewhere, like 

driving the cost of healthcare out of site. This whole idea 

makes me sick to my stomach; unlike any of the food that 

comes off this farm. I am repulsed by these "progressives" 

trying to fix what isn't broken, because it makes them feel 

warm inside. It is nothing more than the continued assault 

on individuality that is spearheaded by our current 

administration.

38 Mar 8, 2010 4:58 PM How do you go about educating the consumers on the 

production of food animal agriculture?

39 Mar 8, 2010 5:00 PM Animal welfare is a troublesome concept. Regardless of 

the number of laws passed there will always be "bad 

actors" but to assume all producers are bad and need to 

be managed leads to a dangerous path. There is another 

underlying premise that is in error. Contrary to many 

activists, meat consumption is not immoral. Animals are 

not humans and have no rights. Animals are property. 

Every person is expected to treat animals with respect and 

commercial agriculture will be rewarded economically for 

doing so. Even without economic reward, a large majority 

of producers treat the animals in their charge with respect.

40 Mar 8, 2010 5:03 PM Here in Colorado we have seen what happens when 

uninformed voters adopt referenda. Many unintended 

consequences which are not beneficial to agriculture. We 

have representatives who should debate and then vote up 

or down, not shirk their duties by passing hard decisions 

on to a public who votes on what they see or read in the 

media, then vote with their emotion, not science.

41 Mar 8, 2010 5:11 PM When regulations are mandated - like no crates for swine 

in Florida then the production shifts to areas where crates 

are allowed. Some of the other education certification 

programs may provide education to help those who care, 

though the small percentage that do not care, will continue 

to cause problems to the industry.

42 Mar 8, 2010 5:33 PM Govt regulation of agriculture is a mistake. Most, if not all, 

govt officials & their staffers have never actually worked on 

a farm or ranch & have no idea of the real issues facing 

farmers. Why should the farmers be regulated by people 

who don't understand the business? You can regulate 
145

agriculture until there no longer is an American farmer & 

then where will you get your food? Farmers & ranchers 

must keep their livestock healthy & treat animals in a 

humane manner to stay in business. If the animal dies, it's 

a drain on the business. So, a free market does more to 

ensure change than any regulation ever could.

43 Mar 8, 2010 5:34 PM Industry will continue to voluntarily regulate itself in the 

proper way. We must allow our industry the ability to 

provide safe food products to the consumer. We are the 

largest animal welfare supporters due to the fact that our 

livelihood is tied to these production animals. Production is 

achieved through good husbandry practices. The current 

ballot initiatives are not intended to create positive change, 

they are directed at stopping meat production. This is why 

HSUS is the largest supporter of these initiatives. We can 

produce the safest food and be the most proficient in the 

world if allowed to do so and the market will drive out the 

bad actors. This has been proven time and time again.

44 Mar 8, 2010 6:01 PM What change is needed? Net returns to producers are 

directly connected to the care and comfort of their animals. 

My observation is that skilled extremists create a "crisis" 

that does not exist. It is called animal welfare, but in reality 

it is anti-animal agriculture. We will all go hungry if they 

continue to have success with their unreasonable efforts.

45 Mar 8, 2010 6:07 PM The free market should dictate what consumers want. 

Supply and demand should dictate what consumers buy 

and are willing to pay. Why should government interfere 

with free markets? We cater to both markets, cage free 

and caged. Clearly the money being spent by special 

interests are skewing the discussions and pressuring 

legislation.

46 Mar 8, 2010 6:19 PM Ballot initiatives should not be allowed period! Non ag

sector trying to dictate our business, our potential profit, 

and our livelihood. How would non ag people like me to 

block their subdivision and tell them they cannot go to work 

today to earn a living? Same principal in the ballot 

initiative. 

Most voters are uninformed, or informed by slanted info, 

PETA, HSUS. How many people vote and have no idea 

what the legislation is or really what it means?

47 Mar 8, 2010 6:38 PM I used to believe in ballot initiatives but today anyone with 

enough money can come in and create an initiative that is 

very seductive that creates chaos with no science behind 

it.
146

48 Mar 8, 2010 6:41 PM Any rules need to be scientifically developed not based on 

misinformation or fears instilled by political correctness. 

Any group supporting said bills must be exposed as to 

number of members, expenses, salaries and stated 

purpose for existence.

49 Mar 8, 2010 7:08 PM Fear welfare initiatives have as the ultimate goal to 

eliminate the use of animals for milk meat eggs etc., 

regardless of how they are raised. They will continue to 

make demands until it becomes impractical or impossible 

to do so.

50 Mar 8, 2010 7:15 PM The problem with using the ballot for these types of issues 

is that most voters vote based on emotion not facts. It is 

tough to provide food demands when emotion dictates how 

you produce.

51 Mar 8, 2010 7:16 PM It is a must that we change the following: provide a more 

natural environment to raise animals for food, quit with the 

steroids and antibodies, increase funding for the above, 

reduce funding for large scale producers of corn, etc. We 

HAVE TO CHANGE OUR WAYS HERE!!!

52 Mar 8, 2010 7:24 PM Closure of horse slaughter plants has caused more 

inhumane treatment of horses & has caused tremendous 

economic impact. There needs to be an outlet for old & 

disabled horses before they are starved & abandoned. 

There needs to be population control on wild horse herds 

that are overgrazing their ranges & starving themselves.

53 Mar 8, 2010 7:28 PM Unless all food entering the USA will come under all 

regulations, then the initiatives will only harm American 

farmers.

54 Mar 8, 2010 7:45 PM Ballot Initiatives would be extremely detrimental to 

agriculture, decisions would be made by emotion, not fact. 

To allow people who have no associations with, or do not 

have any idea how a particular business or industry is 

operated, make hugely impacting decisions on someone 

else is not only wrong, it's not a part of American Free 

Enterprise. Those of us in animal agriculture make not only 

financial decisions, but decisions based on what's best for 

our animals, and those decisions are based on the latest 

and best scientific data on animal care. I have yet to meet 

a farmer who raises animals who didn't want the healthiest, 

happiest, animals possible. Because even if you want to 

translate everything to a bottom line argument, the 

happiest, healthiest animals are the most productive.
147

55 Mar 8, 2010 8:12 PM No more Govt. or regulations by them; the ag. community 

should be governed by farmers not politicians.

56 Mar 8, 2010 8:16 PM We should let the farmers do the farming and keep 

government out of it as much as possible.

57 Mar 8, 2010 8:58 PM The general public cannot understand agriculture since 

most are not familiar with the range of practices and needs 

of animals. Ballot initiatives tend to make animals to be like 

humans or pets, which is the only way most of the public 

can relate to agricultural animals. Regulations are similarly 

limited by the knowledge of those making the laws. Most 

politicians do not have an understanding of agricultural 

animals. Even among the agricultural experts at 

universities, one must be careful not to transfer knowledge 

of specific species preferences to another species to which 

the expert has no knowledge, e.g., cows turn their backs to 

the wind but chickens face the wind.

58 Mar 8, 2010 9:12 PM We are now out of the production of animal products, but 

believe firmly in better/more strict regulation of animal 

processing. It affects all of us in the consumption of food.

Thanks

59 Mar 8, 2010 11:01 PM Most voters are truly unaware of how their food supply is 

provided in a safe animal friendly way and as such bend to 

the media provided by animal rights advocates.

60 Mar 9, 2010 12:01 AM When production is reduced because of regulations 

causing farmers, ranchers and who else produce FOOD to 

go out of business. Who will decide what segment of the 

population will die because of not enough food to feed the 

world’s population now and in the future?

61 Mar 9, 2010 12:52 AM Iowa is an agriculture state and always has been. 

Producers and legislators should work together to preserve 

the profession. It should not be left to the voters, a ballot 

initiative or more regulations would kill rural Iowa. Do the 

right thing!

62 Mar 9, 2010 1:10 AM The public lacks the knowledge to vote in ballot initiatives 

pertaining to animal agriculture. We don't have ballot 

initiatives pertaining to other industries. Animal agriculture 

should be pro-active, so that neither ballot initiatives nor 

regulations become the norm.

63 Mar 9, 2010 1:21 AM The cost to sell an animal matches that which we received 

30 years ago, while the price to the consumer has risen 

dramatically. If not through increased production, the small 

farmer would have disappeared ages ago. It seems the 
148

middle man continues to get his cut, but the farmer is at 

the mercy of the market.

64 Mar 9, 2010 2:04 AM The language of the ballot initiatives, to date has been 

consistent, if not identical across states. They use HSUS 

language, and in a legal context are vague on purpose. 

States that have reached ”agreements” with the HSUS 

language are likely to be sorely disappointed when, in the 

case of swine gestation stalls, the producers think they can 

place female pigs in stalls for the first 30 to 40+ days until 

pregnancy is confirmed. In addition, the language 

regarding the ability for a breeding female to turn without 

touching another animal or their surroundings, as currently 

written in HSUS terms, would mean that each female pig 

would need to be able to stand and turn in place 

concurrently without touching another pig or structure (this 

implies 64 square feet per pig) which is much greater 

space allocation than currently used in systems with 

females housed in pens. The goal is clear, elimination of 

food animal production systems.

65 Mar 9, 2010 2:25 AM Let the free market dictate the farm policies.

66 Mar 9, 2010 2:58 AM Ballot initiatives cause a lot of only half truths to be used as 

catch words or phrases to get attention. Balloting usually 

causes the issue to become very polarized with very little 

attention to the facts and chances to compromise. A lot of 

money is spent on advertising that could be channeled to 

research and education to make animal food agriculture 

more pleasing to the public and still be competitive and a 

good food source for humans.

67 Mar 9, 2010 3:20 AM I think that welfare issues can be satisfied without ballot 

initiatives. The market will dictate what needs to be done 

and producers will respond in kind. The awareness of 

these issues is driving the issue to be a priority with 

producers. The last thing we need is more laws and 

regulations. Farmers and ranchers are the original welfare 

advocates. As information and technology increase and 

improve, producers will respond in kind.

68 Mar 9, 2010 3:40 AM Not a good idea - animal rightists so powerful and 

misleading that science is not taken into account, and 

people are constantly misled about what REALLY happens 

99% of the time in agriculture.

69 Mar 9, 2010 6:18 AM I raise horses as well as cattle the animal rights movement 

has killed the horse industry. I love my horses but there is 

not a market for cull horses this has affected my horse 

business dramatically and will force me out of the 
149

business. I sold two thoroughbred mares on the auction I 

got a $50 for one and $60 for the other one and it cost $68 

to sell them. I don’t blame horse owners for turning horses 

loose on gov lands.

70 Mar 9, 2010 6:39 AM I believe ballot initiatives usually result in more harm than

good. Voters react emotionally to slick media promotion 

and rarely take the time to research both sides of the issue 

and usually do not have a working knowledge of how 

regulations will impact industry. Human nature being what 

it is, there are cases where regulation is necessary. 

However, over-regulation is becoming problematic in 

today's world. I feel that there are adequate laws in place 

that, if enforced, would address the legitimate concerns 

brought forward by animal activists. The opinion of a 

special interest group (in the form of law) should not be 

forced on an industry unless supported by legitimate 

science and subject to review, revision, and/or repeal.

71 Mar 9, 2010 12:38 PM Not a good idea.

72 Mar 9, 2010 1:26 PM As legislators often have little knowledge of the science of 

agriculture even in ag states (Harkin for example) or are 

influenced by large ag groups (Harkin for example) or 

animal welfare groups the formation of a livestock welfare 

advisory board is the only way to ensure science guides 

animal care and not emotion or personal agendas.

73 Mar 9, 2010 2:04 PM Let the market and current Animal Health regulations do 

the job they are intended. I believe the vast majority of 

Animal Food Producers do a great job and the current 

quality assurance standards protect the consumer.

74 Mar 9, 2010 2:05 PM If we as farmers, make a conscious effort to educate our 

customers and their children about the food supply, we will 

benefit for years to come.

75 Mar 9, 2010 2:25 PM Production Agriculture should not be mandated by special 

interest groups who do not have the society as a whole in 

mind. With current population trends, production 

agriculture will continue to feel the pressure to increase 

production to maintain low cost food. With this in mind, 

utilizing research based methods of production to increase 

production is essential. Animal Welfare is of the utmost 

importance on any modern livestock operation including 

horses. Modern agriculture operations understand the 

need to be stewards of the livestock and land in order to 

maintain sustainability in their operations. USDA should 

investigate malicious groups who may fabricate false 

accusations, and should prosecute fully if found that videos 
150

and reports were false and intent was to bring negative 

connotation to all agriculture. Banning Horse Slaughter in 

the US made a difficult situation more difficult. We love our 

pets! I own horses and enjoy them. I also own dogs and 

enjoy them. I also know there is a need for "Kill" animal 

shelters to maintain a moderate level of the dog and cat 

populations. Removing horse slaughter plants in the 

United States removed the only control method we have of 

maintaining horse population levels. This did not stop the 

slaughter, it moved it out of the country where the methods 

were less humane and efficient. This actually made the 

welfare of the animals more at risk than they were in the 

US. Essentially it had a negative effect on horse welfare. 

Horses ride longer distances, and endure more inhumane 

kill and slaughter practices in some other countries. Finally, 

agriculture is the backbone of any society, "An army runs 

on its stomach", everyone must eat at least once daily. 

"America feeds the world." If you wear cotton underwear 

you are involved in agriculture. If we are to maintain the 

ability to feed ourselves and the world and remain the 

dominant world power, we must be able to rely on 

ourselves. If our society becomes reliant on other countries 

to feed us, we will become vulnerable. We must educate 

our next generations on production agriculture and 

encourage them.

76 Mar 9, 2010 2:55 PM Too much emotion and misinformation can be involved 

when these kinds of things are determined by ballot 

initiatives. I'm not saying the voters aren't intelligent 

enough, but I am convinced they don't really understand 

what they're voting for. Glitzy advertisements and onesided stories can sway a lot of people. Obviously, I'm not in 

favor of ballot initiatives like California agriculture is being 

subjected to.

77 Mar 9, 2010 3:10 PM The regulations are lobbied for by large producers to force 

out small farmers, reducing the competition, and 

monopolizing the market. The market needs competition to 

keep prices competitive and quality high.

78 Mar 9, 2010 3:39 PM I am against increased regulation by Washington. 

Increased regulation will drive small/medium independent 

producers out of business; the present profit margin is slim 

enough. All producers benefit when animal welfare is taken 

into account. Happy livestock gain weight and increase 

profit. It is in our own interest to care for and maintain our 

cattle. Ranchers do not need Washington to dictate policy 

to us. Small/medium beef producers are the backbone of 

the American beef industry. Any regulation should be 

focused at the large, corporate owned, Agri-Farms where 
151

they might lose sight of animal welfare. I worry more about 

the welfare of my cattle than most folks worry about their 

own children. Please keep the bureaucrats out of our 

business!

79 Mar 9, 2010 3:52 PM The public is not generally well informed about how small 

farms operate. They usually see only scary videos on 

Utube (on things that should be changed) and extrapolate 

that to all farms. Happy, healthy animals bring the farmer 

more profit, so animal welfare is of high concern to the 

farmer. Calm, clean slaughter practices bring higher quality 

meat to the market and should be regulated. Consumers 

can vote with their food dollars and so can buyers like 

McDonalds and Walmart who demand Quality for their 

customers. I don't think the general public is well enough 

informed to vote on agriculture. See books by Dr. Temple 

Grandin for discussion on these subjects.

80 Mar 9, 2010 4:17 PM Ballot initiatives and regulations proposed by groups allow 

for a large range of input into agriculture practices. This 

large range of input is good in most cases. The final 

regulations that are derived must be based on science and 

not wishful thinking. If regulations that are very restrictive 

are adopted, then the farmers must be allowed time to 

adopt to the new regulations. If the regulations cause an 

unfair advantage for imported products, then the imported 

products should be subject to the same regulatory 

standards.

81 Mar 9, 2010 5:02 PM Great job being done by producers. People more worried 

about nothing than raising their kids wholesomely.

82 Mar 9, 2010 6:02 PM If we are going to allow the public to tell us how to treat our 

animals that we raise for production, then we should be 

able to tell them how to run their business. Any 

interference at all is an intrusion on our ability to do 

business in a manner we see fit and serves our best 

interest. If they are unhappy about the welfare of our 

animals they have the choice to buy and eat something 

else. That is what the free market is all about. 

Unfortunately, most people who want to interfere consider 

that free market is only free when it applies to someone 

else.

83 Mar 9, 2010 7:45 PM Bring back smaller farms that bring more decision makers, 

more jobs, and more small businesses back into business 

for better economic stability.

84 Mar 9, 2010 8:50 PM Larger dairy producers are doing a good job, they have to 

stay in business or it affects their bottom line. They have 
152

no reason not to work toward the best interest of 

production agriculture. However, when you start giving 

these animals feelings/human rights it is going to become 

extremely costly for food. Plain and simple people are 

going to starve to death because food will not be produced 

as economically and they won't be able to afford it. 

Animals have the right to food, water, shelter and 

protection from predators...the stricter regulations will be 

as hard/harder on the small/medium farmer because those 

are the ones who have less capital to make improvements 

in facilities, less time to do dehorning at an early age, etc. 

because they have less people involved. So by changing 

the "factory farms" they are going to destroy the little guy 

who they claim to be trying to save???

85 Mar 9, 2010 9:04 PM We do not need the common populace deciding the rules 

that the agricultural industry in this country must abide by. 

There are enough organizations within most every industry 

to regulate themselves, insuring their longevity for the 

benefit of the industry and the consumers who depend 

upon the USDA and the industry for compliance. We also 

have anti-trust laws to prevent collusion within most 

industries within this country.

86 Mar 9, 2010 9:05 PM Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The people 

should be regulating government influence, not the other 

way around. Consumers can and will vote with their 

pocketbooks, especially in hard times.

87 Mar 9, 2010 10:37 PM America: Be careful what you ask for...

88 Mar 9, 2010 10:59 PM As with any survey, I did not appreciate how some 

questions are phrased. Size and husbandry practice are 

not always linked. Most ballot initiatives will impact 

practices; which in turn impact operations regardless of 

size.

89 Mar 10, 2010 3:03 AM I have believed that the added regulations we have now 

has eliminated the wanting of the small young farmer to 

start in the livestock business. The added torture of the 

harassment of "city people" moving to the country 

complaining about country smells has forced people like 

me to close my small operation. Any ballot initiative will 

probably force many more small producers to close. This 

will mean more importing of foreign foodstuffs that may not 

meet the US consumer’s high quality standards. 

Unfortunately regulation doesn't affect large producers 

because they can move to a different state and set up 

shop in a more friendly area.
153

90 Mar 10, 2010 12:56 PM I am against strong regulation of any kind. However, I see 

the trend in the quality of meat declining due to increased 

stress from continuous and close confinement, primarily 

due to the increased stress hormones released in the 

animals. We, as consumers of this meat (or eggs, milk, 

etc.) are secondarily affected from the by-products of this 

unnatural way of housing and raising our food-producing 

animals. I am at a loss as how to remedy the situation, 

except to encourage the livelihood of smaller farms / 

organic farms and to have the public support higher prices 

for their meat/eggs/milk for higher quality products.

91 Mar 10, 2010 2:30 PM I do not like question #2. There should be some option for 

regulation coming from USDA, State Depts. of Ag with 

input from producer groups, other ag agencies and other 

outside interests.

92 Mar 10, 2010 4:08 PM What are acceptable standards to one individual or group 

may not be acceptable to another. There is not a "right" or 

"wrong" answer, so consumers should decide by what they 

are willing to spend at the marketplace. Too much misinformation and generalizations are placed in consumer 

hands without publication of consequences. A listing of 

cause and effect would be beneficial. Legislation should 

not benefit one group over another, i.e. the legislation 

should not be about marketing but rather about what is 

real. What person or legislative body can possibly know 

the best answer for animal welfare? Keep the radical 

groups out of the discussion.

93 Mar 10, 2010 4:25 PM Consumers should have the right to choose whatever they 

want. It's the farmers risk to take if he wants to be a 

specific certified producer. There should not be any 

regulations stating what type of food I can buy. There 

should only be regulations to follow if a farmer wants to get 

a specific "label".

94 Mar 10, 2010 5:20 PM Decisions need to be based off of sound SCIENCE, not off 

of people's EMOTIONS. Allowing people to vote based on 

emotions will cause the agriculture industry to fall apart. 

We do not need to be told how to care for our animals and 

land - we wouldn't be doing this if we didn't care.

95 Mar 10, 2010 6:23 PM Increasing rules and regulations regarding food animal 

production will always impact small farmers negatively and 

will have little effect on the large corporate producers. This 

has been going on for decades and has driven many small 

farmers out of business. I know from personal experience. 

Regarding who should decide about animal welfare 

regulations and initiatives, it should NOT be the politicians 
154

or members of the food animal industry or animal rights 

groups. Their interests are merely self-serving. Deciding by 

ballot would involve too many people w/o knowledge of 

food animal production. A committee comprised of 

individuals involved in various aspects of food animal 

production (but not industry) should be assembled. Such a 

committee should be comprised of some food animal 

veterinarians, some producers, some govt. extension 

agents, and perhaps others I cannot think of at the 

moment. Regulation of food animal welfare can be done 

fairly and intelligently if it is thought out properly in 

advance, and if it does not rely on the folks with special 

interests (lawyers/politicians, corporate folks, animal rights 

folks). My opinion is that small producers are more likely to 

be already following good practices of animal management 

and are most likely producing a higher quality animal 

product than is industry. Yet the small producers seem to 

be negatively impacted by each and every new rule or 

regulation.

96 Mar 10, 2010 9:33 PM Groups and individuals who use hype and hysteria to 

promote a cause are frequently well intentioned but misguided in that they do not tend to understand livestock 

production practices and do not realize that producers do 

not intentionally use any production practice that would 

hinder production, health, or safety of their animals. 

Production practices that shelter, protect, and maintain the 

health of animals encourages faster growth and 

production. Pasture raised swine tend to have lower 

survival rates because sows frequently lay on/crush pigs, 

others die of predation and poorer health due to exposure 

to the elements. Other species suffer similar but different 

production/survival challenges that many people do not 

realize.

97 Mar 10, 2010 9:39 PM Industry demands will be met with progressive small and 

mid-sized farmers regardless of certifications or 

regulations. Let the industry handle it on its own.

98 Mar 10, 2010 10:01 PM Animals should be humanely treated regardless of the 

cost....it is the right thing to do. It is barbaric and deplorable 

to subject animals to miserable living conditions just to 

save on cost. These are living creatures that feel pain and 

emotions just as humans. I don't care how the changes are 

brought about, but change does need to happen and I 

don't think we can assume that people will just do the right 

thing because we have seen that this doesn't work...too 

much greed and ignorance out there.
155

99 Mar 10, 2010 10:03 PM Any and all change in regulations and laws dealing w/ food 

animal agriculture and animal agriculture should be based 

on practical and common farming practices and scientific 

research based information. Also, it should be feasible to 

achieve. Use some common sense when establishing regs 

and laws.

100 Mar 10, 2010 11:22 PM Initiatives play on consumers' emotions and that is no way 

to set farm regulations

101 Mar 10, 2010 11:45 PM I feel that the push for governmental regulation of farms 

creates more problems than it solves. A good example is 

the ban of horse slaughter in the US. While horses are no 

longer being slaughtered here, they are now suffering even 

more as they are trucked to Mexico for the same fate. 

Additionally, most consumers are not willing to pay the 

prices that would be necessary to support the changes that 

would be regulated. The best way to regulate farming is to 

allow the consumer to make educated choices about the 

source of their food products. This market push has the 

potential to initiate much larger changes than government 

intervention ever can.

102 Mar 10, 2010 11:58 PM Being from CA in the egg production business I can attest 

to the fact that ballot initiatives are not the way to go. 

However production animal agriculture is going to have to 

be able to reach an acceptable compromise with animal 

advocacy groups. Educating the consumer is the most 

important part of the equation. Farmers only want to 

produce and consequently have abdicated their rights to 

activist groups who want animal ag eliminated. It is 

imperative that ag gain back the confidence of the 

consumer. It's time to become marketers and educators as 

well as being producers.

103 Mar 11, 2010 3:16 AM Ballot initiatives should not be used. The general, non 

agriculture sector of the population is so far removed from 

animal production that they vote based on a feeling vs. a 

fact. Consumers are severely swayed by negative, one 

sided media that only highlights the small minority of 

offenders, when overall, true animal production is not like 

the few hobby or part time producers.

104 Mar 11, 2010 1:46 PM The group most qualified and with the most to gain and 

lose in creating regulations are the farmers and ranchers 

producing the product. They should be the ones to write

the regulations in cooperation with Extension Specialists. 

Once the regulations are established then a good 

education effort should be implemented that will inform the 

farmers and ranchers of the minimal requirements in 

animal husbandry. Once in place the regulations can be 
156

implemented by a states agriculture regulatory agency 

such as Departments of Ag or a Land Grant University. 

Keeping in mind that farmers need adequate time to retool 

if necessary.

105 Mar 11, 2010 4:26 PM On the question about unintended consequences, I did not 

check "Create a change in the quality of products from 

previous norms"; however, I think the quality of products 

will INCREASE if animal welfare is taken into account. I am 

primarily a consumer of animal products. I strongly support 

raising animals in a "natural" way - no feed lots, no 

concrete pads, fed a food that is natural for the animal 

(e.g. no grain for ruminants but OK for hogs), and no 

prophylactic antibiotics or growth hormones. I only buy 

non-CAFO meat and milk, which means I usually have to 

buy directly from a farmer I trust. I currently pay 50-100% 

more for meat and 100-125% more for milk than CAFO 

product prices. I expect that premium would DECREASE if 

more farmers were raising food animals naturally.

106 Mar 11, 2010 4:42 PM I don't generally think a ballot initiative is a good way of 

legislating. I do think that some changes in food animal 

agriculture are needed. My actions so far have been 

limited to buying free range eggs, and most of my meat in 

the form of a lamb at the Community Fair auction. I would 

prefer to see more animals raised on small farms as 

opposed to feed lots. Luckily, I am in a position to pay the 

extra cost, but I am not sure what more regulation would 

do to the food costs for people who are nearer poverty. 

Legislation can certainly start by regulating animal waste 

from CAFOs - this is essential.

107 Mar 11, 2010 4:43 PM There is a huge amount of unintended consequences that 

will occur. These will range from eggs dropping on litter 

covered ground to red meat animals not properly finished. 

The cost factors will go up immensely putting most of the 

smaller growers out of business.

108 Mar 11, 2010 5:13 PM Ballot initiatives and referenda tend to elicit more emotional 

response from voters. Livestock producers and related 

organizations are far better qualified to generate regulatory 

legislation pertaining to animal food quality.

109 Mar 11, 2010 6:04 PM Food animal agriculture is already doing well without inputs 

from uneducated animal advocates! I don’t see that any 

change is necessary. The regulations already enforced 

mandate the proper treatment of food animals, i.e. 

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Farmers treat the 

animals better than most people get treated by one 

another! Food safety starts at home with following proper 
157

cooking techniques. Most people infected with food borne 

pathogens have done so by undercooking meats. We will 

never have full control of food borne pathogens, and the 

regulations mandated are well enough, unless consumers 

want to spend more money on their meat products. 

Pathogens live in vegetables and fruits too, but we don’t 

hear about those!

110 Mar 11, 2010 6:13 PM I find this survey hard to answer, because the effects of 

regulation would be very different depending on precisely 

how the regulations are formulated. I would like to see 

more controls for both animal welfare and pollution control 

for large farms, but I do not want small farmers burdened. 

The last thing I would want is more concentration, but 

regulations can all too easily lead that way when they 

require massive new investment, for example. Hence I 

oppose ballot initiatives, which are often not well-crafted or 

thought-through. But I would like legislation that simply 

exempted small farms and had fewer regulations for 

medium-sized farms. This would reduce the overall 

efficiency of agriculture and raise prices, but it would have 

advantages for farmers and others in the long term.

111 Mar 11, 2010 9:16 PM Food prices are too high. Additional mandates will cause 

additional price increases!

112 Mar 11, 2010 10:01 PM If people knew how most animal products were produced, 

they wouldn't go near them. People need to be connected 

to the source of their food and know what is going on in 

agribusiness.

113 Mar 11, 2010 10:47 PM Judging from the number of items to which I responded 

"not sure," more education is needed for the general 

public.

114 Mar 11, 2010 11:10 PM Totally detrimental to the availability of affordable, 

sustainable, healthy, and safe food products derived from 

honest environmentally conscious producers.

115 Mar 12, 2010 12:18 AM I think producers need to get involved and pass legislation 

and not wait for initiatives.

116 Mar 12, 2010 2:01 AM The agricultural industry needs to be pro-active and take 

the initiative to ensure animal welfare while fighting against 

animal rights. The Ohio initiative is a good example of this 

approach.

117 Mar 12, 2010 2:24 AM I am a retired rancher. If people with no farm background 

are the rulers, the farmer will be out of business. The 

farmer doesn't tell the city dweller how to live his life.
158

118 Mar 12, 2010 2:58 AM Anything done concerning agriculture should be done 

carefully. Something may be good for one farm (making it 

better, better animal practices, etc.), but could be 

extremely detrimental to smaller farms. Small farms are the 

backbone of our country. Most small farmers strive to 

produce the highest quality food products while 

maintaining the best animal husbandry practices. The 

small farmers should be protected from any "unintended 

consequences" that could/would be destructive to their 

farm operation.

119 Mar 12, 2010 3:05 AM If the people and leaders of this country want all of our 

food products to be grown outside of this country's 

borders, just keep regulating us to extremes and the 

businesses whether growing or processing, will leave. And 

only then will the masses complain about country of origin. 

But, they won't have the smell and the portrayed horrible 

"factory farms" in their backyards. And, they will have no 

control as to want happens in any other country.... 

because the demand will be greater than the supply and 

we will be at the mercy of the producing countries.

120 Mar 12, 2010 3:08 AM No Comment

121 Mar 12, 2010 3:55 AM 63% passed the cage free egg law Prop 2 in CA; 6% buy 

cage free eggs prior to vote; 4% of Californians buy cage 

free eggs now that the economy slumped. The general 

population does not realize they will be impacted.

122 Mar 12, 2010 3:19 PM Ballot initiatives allow those who have little if any 

knowledge to control and dictate how things are to be 

done. They are making decisions based on emotions 

rather than rational thinking and the impact can/will create 

situations from which animal agriculture cannot recover. 

Once the animal agricultural industry is "shut" down it will 

take years to rebuild if it can be done at all. Cheap food will 

be a thing of the past and food safety will become a major 

problem. As we transition to more imported food and lose 

control of the food supply the demise of our country 

becomes inevitable.

123 Mar 12, 2010 3:30 PM The confusion and consternation caused among CA egg 

producers after Prop. 2 is a telling example of the law of 

unintended consequences. Also the unwanted horses after 

slaughter was closed, even transportation to Canada or 

Mexico. HSUS should be accused of extortion for their 

efforts to demand food chains to purchase from 'approved' 

sources. There is no defense that I can think of once they 

show horrible videos as they did in the Prop. 2 campaigns. 
159

Since we can't overcome those videos, let us encourage 

(quietly) those who pursue the "racketeering" and extortion 

techniques they engage in. They need to be revealed as 

social engineers (they're using religious organizations to 

buy into their kinder-gentler agenda) and their stated 

agenda must be made public over and over. Thanks for 

doing this survey.

124 Mar 12, 2010 4:07 PM Yes we can! Change for the good of the animals, and your 

pocket books can adjust. Let the people decide where they 

want their food to come from.

125 Mar 12, 2010 4:12 PM The normal consumer is not educated in the farming 

practices and the production volume that it takes to 

produce food for the people in the United States and world 

unless we are able to educate and inform them to the 

fullest degree, they shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues 

concerning feeding the people. The food supply is very 

limited because if one large producer quits, someone may 

go hungry until that production void is filled, which could 

take years if the permitting process is delayed. Animal 

rights people should review their own values and be 

concerned that there is enough affordable production to 

feed the people.

126 Mar 12, 2010 5:12 PM I am for animal welfare, but am tired of the local (city, 

county) telling me what I can and cannot raise on my farm. 

I think there are people in the government pulling in a 

paycheck that do not know what they are doing to the local 

constituents.

127 Mar 12, 2010 5:58 PM Most consumers completing ballot initiatives know very 

little about the production of food supplies, or understand 

the true impact of the initiatives they sign.

128 Mar 12, 2010 6:37 PM The vast majority of consumers are in urban areas with 

limited understanding of production agriculture (see 

California). It is important that regulations are balanced 

such that costs of production and compliance don't force 

small and medium sized farmers out of business and 

increase food prices. Although our food prices as a 

percentage of income are very low, this is due to 

technology and hard work of our farmers and farm families. 

We have the safest, most secure food supply right here in 

the US. If you want to regulate anything, it should be the 

imported food that is grown with substandard practices and 

regulations.

129 Mar 12, 2010 7:13 PM It is the wrong way to force change. The public does not 

have the knowledge to make an informed choice. A ballot 
160

initiative provides a yes or no vote. Animal welfare is not 

that black and white. A discussion between informed 

parties with some unbiased research and data is needed 

to come up with the best solution. Ballot initiatives often 

are accompanied by one-sided information offered by the 

organizers of the initiative. It can be hard for any 

opposition to provide the public with the other side of the 

story.

130 Mar 12, 2010 8:27 PM I believe that ballot initiatives of such things are BAD. The 

majority of people who vote are informed of most ballot 

issues. I have been an election judge for over 10 years 

and even local issues such as tax increases to support the 

local schools are not well understood. Issues such as 

animal food issues are foreign to most people and if they 

are "informed" the information most likely came from 

'radical' groups who want to protect "those poor animals". I 

attended a small group at a church three weeks ago and it 

was obvious that even the speaker was emotionally 

involved and did not know much about our animal food 

system - they had collected some video secretly of some 

unusual treatment of animals such as the Holstein cow 

being moved with a fork lift (shown on TV) a few months 

ago -- "it was fact that all animals were and are treated that 

way" at that meeting. Any actions taken such as uncaging 

chickens and farrowing sows will really hurt the small and 

medium farmer (I was raised on a small farm) As 

Legislative Director of the Illinois State Grange, we oppose 

such prohibitions. Farmers don't intentionally abuse their 

animals!!

131 Mar 12, 2010 8:44 PM I am very concerned that regulations will put me and the 

saving of my 5 generation, established in 1856, farm out of 

business. Direct marketing is allowing us to provide quality 

products to an appreciative knowledgeable customer. 

Regulations could prevent us from doing what we are 

doing and put our farm in jeopardy.

132 Mar 12, 2010 9:15 PM Food production needs to be in the hands of the producer 

of row crop, and animal commodities. The consumer has 

the right of choice on food items. Americans are used to 

cheap food and around 7% of annual income for food. With 

ballot initiatives and more regulation the cost of food will go 

up, creating consolidation and less producers. We do not 

want our food dependency to be in another country’s 

hands. Cheap food has been our greatest defense.

133 Mar 12, 2010 10:39 PM Animal Care Boards at State levels should oversee how 

animals should be handled. Commodity welfare standards 

by associations should only be voluntary. As news has 
161

shown, it seems that the few who may not even eat the 

commodities they wish to control are forcing the many to 

pay more for their food. With US population growing over 

300 million, how will these rollbacks to older tech meet that 

food demand?

134 Mar 13, 2010 1:24 AM I feel that a lot of consumers are "disconnected" from 

agriculture. It would be nice if they could get connected 

with farmers and see how production agriculture really is. 

The saying holds true that, "One bad apple spoils the 

bushel." Anti-agriculture activist groups seem to be 

effective in influencing the media and public, emphasizing 

the few "bad apples" out here. Farmers in my 

neighborhood are concerned with the environment and do 

take pride in ensuring the welfare of their animals.

135 Mar 13, 2010 2:23 AM I think that the protectionists are out to get agriculture any 

way they can and by scaring the public they get their way 

at the expense of farmers and livestockmen.

136 Mar 13, 2010 4:46 PM #14. To which group do you most closely affiliate yourself 

with? Extension Council for Agriculture, Farm Bureau, 

Animal Veterinarians, The Grange, Independent farmer, 

Organic, natural, free range producer. I see most 

legislatures only helping support Monsanto, Cargill and the 

like and only hurting the small farmer/producer, minority 

breeds and many purebred animals.

137 Mar 13, 2010 6:00 PM The proposed regulations have consequences that have 

nothing to do with their purpose. The way they are written 

will cause huge issues to small farmers, exclusions or 

provisions for anyone raising food animals on a small scale 

should be included.

138 Mar 13, 2010 7:48 PM This survey is very poorly worded and will generate bias 

responses. You can't talk about ballot initiatives and 

intended/non-intended consequences in the abstract. If 

you are talking about voters banning battery cages for egg 

production, say so. Consumers are demanding changes to 

agricultural, changes that small and medium size farms are 

willing to accommodate. ItÆs only the established, 

outdated, industrial agriculture conglomerates that are 

digging in their heels and fighting change.

139 Mar 13, 2010 10:10 PM As long as the proposal is initiated by one whose interest 

in agriculture is more than as a consumer, the ballot 

initiative process is okay but initiatives sponsored by 

someone whose only interest is as a consumer or animal 

rights activist, it can be severely distorted and the outcome 
162

may be much more than that which was intended. 

Regulations are different. They are usually promulgated by 

people who at least understand the breadth of the impact 

of a proposed regulation.

140 Mar 13, 2010 11:01 PM In regard to question #5 of your survey, it can have both 

positive and negative impacts on the rural community.

141 Mar 13, 2010 11:35 PM I don't think it’s a very good way to assure animal welfare 

but unfortunately, the industrial food complex has done a 

terrible job on its own. Unfortunately, legislation that 

mandates good behavior often trickles down in unexpected 

and often negative ways to small producers (like us) that 

DO treat our animals very well. I don't see the legislature 

as being the problem though - in the end, it’s the industrial 

producers that 'rain on the cake' for everyone in the end 

(and in so many ways).

142 Mar 14, 2010 2:12 PM Regulation should always be based on sound science and 

a demonstrated need for intrusion into business. Animal 

agriculture needs to recognize that there are bad players 

out there, just as there are in any business and be 

prepared to point them out. The rest of us do a wonderful 

job and do not need additional regulatory control. The real 

effort here is to remove meat from the US diet and I hope 

that someday the PETA/HSUS crowd is the first to starve 

to death when they finally make it too difficult and 

expensive to produce food.

143 Mar 14, 2010 6:47 PM It deeply concerns me that outside groups who have no 

agricultural interest want to tell farmers what to do. Such 

as the HSUS who wants to control the animal production 

industry by eventually getting "non-agricultural" people to 

vote for misstated truths. In my opinion, they want to do 

away with any animal being used for human consumption. 

They are stepping on my constitutional right of life, liberty, 

happiness when they tell me what I can or cannot eat. For 

the most part, many farmers treat their livestock with great 

care. There are a few, as with any group, who do not which 

puts a black name on everyone.

144 Mar 14, 2010 7:38 PM I feel that more stringent regulations only benefit the large 

producers and manufacturers who are more able to spread 

out the cost. Increased regulations will reduce or eliminate 

all but the largest commercial producers, and rarely do 

these sell directly to the consumer. I feel that farmers 

should have a RIGHT to sell DIRECTLY to the consumer 

with a minimum of regulation. No one responsibly 

producing food will compromise their standard or risk 

selling less than wholesome food. The longer the "chain" 
163

from producer to consumer increases the chance of food 

contamination (accidentally or deliberate). Small farmers 

are the ones maintaining heritage breeds, heirloom seeds 

and plants, and the overall health of the soil. You cannot 

legislate common sense, responsibility, or concern for your 

animals and land. Farming is hard work, very few of us ride 

around in million dollar air conditioned tractors with little or 

no connection to the food we produce. My friends and 

family eat what I produce, no law will make me be more 

careful or more responsible about my land, my produce or 

my animals.

145 Mar 14, 2010 11:13 PM Let’s not legislate the American farmer out of business and 

drive production to 3rd world countries.

146 Mar 14, 2010 11:40 PM I think it's a good idea to use this form to gather 

information from all areas of interest. Our Granges are very 

interested in anything to do with agriculture.

147 Mar 15, 2010 1:57 PM Is there a place for animal welfare guidelines - absolutely? 

Should they be mandated by groups wanting to eliminate 

food coming from animals - absolutely not. Providing 

reasonably priced, safe animal protein from this country is 

important. Mandates by groups onto specific states that 

can and will so severely impact that state’s agriculture 

sector is ridiculous. We must look at the bigger picture and 

the future of where our food will come from. How much will 

it cost, are we looking at animal care or animal rights, how 

safe is our food supply, and are we willing to regulate food 

animal production out of a state or of our country? I'd say 

no. Animal care and welfare is VERY important. But we 

need to keep the perspective that it is care and welfare we 

look at with other factors, not just an animal's rights.

148 Mar 15, 2010 2:55 PM Ballot initiatives allow those not associated with agriculture 

to make decisions that they have no knowledge of. Most 

Americans do not know where their food comes from, so 

we are expecting them to make decisions for the farmer? 

The farmer has to take care of their animals or the animals 

will not produce and make a profit. The big question is who 

is going to pay for these rules and regulations to be 

enforced? Ultimately the farmer will. Regulations only hurt 

those that are doing things right in the first place. Those 

that are doing wrong will continue to do so illegally and 

there will be no one available to enforce it.

149 Mar 15, 2010 3:00 PM I believe that in our current system of production that the 

market will mandate to producers what and how much they 

should produce. That is if the government will leave the 

producers and markets (supply and demand) alone. I think 
164

that government should not meddle in the market place. I 

also feel strongly that price controls, subsidies as well as 

other market/production manipulation is not needed and 

only makes problems for everyone.

150 Mar 15, 2010 3:01 PM Any regulations can be manipulated by large companies 

and used to make life more difficult for the small farmer. 

Less regulation is better in my mind. More consumer 

education and transparency from big corporations is 

needed to help people understand how to vote with their 

food dollars. Thanks.

151 Mar 15, 2010 3:10 PM Most US voters don't know what they are voting on as it is 

now. I don't see that changing. Why should the uninformed 

public decide policy?? Farmers and producers eat too.

152 Mar 15, 2010 3:11 PM I oppose the use of ballot initiatives and regulations to 

create change in food animal agriculture. I believe that 

consumers should "vote" with their dollars to change 

agriculture. If consumers want to purchase food that is 

raised "humanely, sustainably, cage-free, antibiotic-free, 

organic, etc." they should purchase food from 

farmers/firms that produce food in a way that matches their 

ideals. The problem of regulation is an information 

problem. If consumers had perfect information about how 

their food is produced, they would choose to buy food that 

matches their ideals. The role of government should be to 

make sure that farms/firms are providing consumers with 

accurate information about how they (the farms/firms) 

produce, process, and handle food. Provided with accurate 

information about what they are buying, consumers will 

have the power to influence the way food is produced.

153 Mar 15, 2010 3:13 PM Non-corporate producers will be harmed by these 

proposals. Most producers are not making any money or at 

best getting a minimal return on their investment, hard 

work and long hours. Any additional strain will cause many 

small producers to leave the family farm. As these farmers 

leave, the vacuum will be filled with foreign farm products, 

where we have no idea what we are eating, and corporate 

farms which do not benefit the communities. These 

proposals, however well meant, have the potential to 

disrupt the American family farm.

154 Mar 15, 2010 3:17 PM We raise bulls and if you don't have some checks all you 

have is a bunch of bull

155 Mar 15, 2010 3:39 PM If there were no government subsidies in grain production 

there would not be many animal welfare problems because 

there would not be many large animal confinement 
165

operations. Without the cheap government subsidized 

grain they are just not sustainable economically. Poor 

animal welfare is one of the unintended consequences of 

grain subsidies.

156 Mar 15, 2010 3:43 PM Large corporate farms benefit from efficiency and scale of 

operation that often precludes good farming practice and 

quality of product

157 Mar 15, 2010 3:52 PM In most cases, perhaps all cases when it comes to animal 

agriculture, the general public is not well enough informed 

to be making these decisions. They are "educated" by 

politically motivated ads and by information from each side 

that may or may not be accurate. The history of activist 

groups (such as PETA) has been to tell whatever story is 

necessary to advance their agenda. Too often the general 

public will believe whatever they are told without doing 

independent research, and thus vote with their hearts and 

not their heads. Unfortunately, the same can be said for 

congress as well. These decisions need to be based in 

science and made by informed groups or panels. If the 

public wants free range chicken raised on grass, worms 

and bugs, let them have it. If there is a demand, a market 

will develop and there will be producers that will supply that 

market. But has anyone told them what it's going to cost to 

buy that product? Probably not. Thanks for the opportunity 

to provide some input.

158 Mar 15, 2010 4:08 PM Mandates on producers by consumers are often harmful to 

the producers who cannot pass the added cost of 

production onto the customer. Welfare concerns should be 

based upon science and not emotion. Producers are very 

concerned about the welfare of their animals. Producers 

will modify production methods if it is demonstrated to 

improve welfare and production of their animals and can 

be modified over time to allow the producer to stay in 

business.

159 Mar 15, 2010 6:36 PM Food animal production is a business/industry, no different 

than building houses or selling cars or merchandise. Any 

involvement of those espousing "bioethical", 

"humane/proper treatment", who have no education or 

understanding of the industry from the "hands-on" level, 

will lead to detrimental outcomes. Initially for the producers 

(at all levels) and eventually for the consumers of this 

nation. The people who know the business need to be the 

ones who police the industry, not Hollywood, not lobbied 

legislators, and not high rise apartment dwellers who do 

not know the difference between an Angus and a Rhode 

Island Red.
166

160 Mar 15, 2010 7:54 PM All of this legislation is geared to push out the small and 

medium farmer. Eventually, all that will be left will be big 

corporate farms. We need to push legislation to help the 

smaller farmers/producers stay afloat.

161 Mar 15, 2010 7:57 PM I believe that the animal rights activists are using this for 

their own agenda. I believe in the humane treatment for all 

animals but I do not believe in the extremes that animal 

rights activists go to press their agendas.

162 Mar 15, 2010 8:06 PM Regulations need to take into consideration the type and 

size of the farm, not an across the board one size fits all.

163 Mar 15, 2010 8:20 PM The most amazing thing I see with all the interest in 

legislating animal welfare /food safety is that there are no 

farmers involved. Legislators, unless they are farmers, 

don't know enough about the subject to write new 

legislation.

164 Mar 15, 2010 8:30 PM I do have chickens, but no huge amount of land to farm on.

165 Mar 15, 2010 9:21 PM Controlling too much, too fast could easily backfire. 

Change where it needs to be changed. Use Extension.

166 Mar 15, 2010 9:34 PM Less government intervention in production the better for 

the consumer in virtually every way. Private certification 

programs can be an asset. Government interference and 

intervention adversely impacts the inherent controls of the 

free market enterprise.

167 Mar 15, 2010 9:57 PM I want common sense to regulate, not bureaucrats. I trust 

American farmers and corporations much more than

government regulators. I want more good responsible food 

processing inspectors, not more laws and regulations. I 

prefer an open free market with limited regulations.

168 Mar 15, 2010 9:59 PM I am in favor of any regulations that improve the way 

animals are raised, fed, treated in general, and 

slaughtered.

169 Mar 15, 2010 10:27 PM Ballot initiatives and regulations most often do not involve 

real input from animal agriculture producers (the vast 

majority family farms and ranches), and fail to truly 

consider the impact the regulations have on the families 

producing food for our country. In addition, the regulations 

and initiatives are rarely "real world" solutions, making food 

more expensive and negatively impacting both quality and 

quantity.
167

170 Mar 15, 2010 10:34 PM I am in Ohio. I am very afraid. This is a critical time for us. I 

fear we cannot overcome the massive propaganda 

machine that is HSUS. My animals are cared for and 

treated properly. But if someone with only the lies in their 

head looks at it, they may disagree. A nice barn that is dry 

and well ventilated is perfect, they do not need nor would 

they do better in the Taj Mahal. I have a soft heart and do 

not like the day that animals are loaded on the trailer for 

that last ride. But until that time comes I can treat them 

with care and concern. Are you ready for a vegan nation?

171 Mar 15, 2010 10:45 PM Too many of your questions were negatively slanted. You 

didn't ask if there could be positive impacts on farms from 

ballot initiatives. Once upon a time we had a membership 

in CAST. We felt you were fairly anti-environmental 

protection in your policies.

172 Mar 15, 2010 10:57 PM These ballots, in the past have all been sponsored by 

HSUS - a group dedicated to the elimination of food animal 

production. The ag industry needs to stand in a unified 

front against HSUS, listen to our customers and provide 

them a product that they demand. At the same time, 

science must rule over emotion and just because 

something looks better - doesn't mean it is better for the 

welfare of the animals or the environment.

173 Mar 15, 2010 11:02 PM I strongly believe in humanely, raised livestock but do not 

think most consumers have a clue about what really goes 

on - be it good or bad. IMO the goal of most animal welfare 

and animal rights groups is not humanely raised and 

harvested livestock but the elimination of animal protein for 

consumption. I think producers should be included in 

discussions on how to improve humane production and 

reduce animal mishandling without putting family farms out 

of business.

174 Mar 15, 2010 11:26 PM Policy should NEVER be written by people (the voting 

public OR government agency personnel) who have never 

raised animals for food and have no concept of how to 

raise and market animals and be a VIABLE (i.e. make a 

profit) farm entity.

175 Mar 15, 2010 11:40 PM The prime example of unintended consequences is the 

ban on horse slaughter. Now we have more starving and 

abandoned horses than ever. Too often well intended 

people are led astray by groups such as PETA and The 

Humane Society of America. Their goal is the destruction 

of animal agriculture and the uninformed don't know or 

care.
168

176 Mar 15, 2010 11:45 PM In regards to NAIS... I feel that it needs to either be 

voluntary (which I know it currently is) or go farther and 

provide carcass data and other info for public access 

where a producer or a consumer can look up how livestock 

are performing and could lead to improved meat quality

177 Mar 15, 2010 11:48 PM We must separate animal welfare (decreasing pain, fear, 

and suffering) from animal rights (where to live, which 

other animal to breed etc)! We must separate "certified 

organic" (with more rules than anything ever known to 

man; raising price ridiculously) from "from certified no 

antibiotic in feed, no steroid implants, grass fed, no byproduct fed" which is what reasonable people are willing to 

do, and which can be done reasonably. We must get 

government to stop applying regulations intended for 

industry (huge feedlots and packing plants) to individually 

slaughtered cattle and pigs.

178 Mar 15, 2010 11:56 PM My farm product affects a family or two, the corporate 

farms product, when something goes bad, affects 

hundreds or thousands if something goes wrong. Why ship 

our jobs abroad with downsizing and NAFTA, and then 

constrict our ability to farm with more and more 

regulations? BTW I love the pass given to corporations 

concerning "Organic" products....any crumbs left for the 

rest of us?

179 Mar 16, 2010 12:18 AM The only focus of truly effective ballot initiatives should be 

aimed at empowering the consumer, reducing restrictions 

on free commerce, and providing for increased 

transparency of commercial operations. It makes no sense 

that 2 willing parties in the US cannot buy food from each 

other without governmental interference and approval, and 

all legislation ostensibly meant to 'protect the consumer' is 

really focused on protecting large businesses from smaller 

ones. This leads directly to an increased burden on small 

independent growers, which forces consolidation and cost 

cutting measures, which are the primary drivers for the 

animal welfare issues we're so concerned about today. 

This is caused by excessive regulation, and more 

regulation will not make it better. In other words, an 

educated consumer who is empowered to buy meat and 

milk straight off the farm will do so, but can't right now due 

to regulation. We need less governmental restrictions, not 

more. Any proposed ballot initiatives should focus on 

facilitation of free market demand from informed 

consumers. Big Business will always game legislation and 

the specific requirements of cage sizes and such, but a 

ballot initiative that mandated that all commercial 

agricultural facilities be open for public inspection during 
169

normal business hours would allow market forces and 

informed consumers to decide what the rules should be 

between informed and consenting adults. Think about it -

do you think anyone would visit one of the mega feed lots 

and buy beef from their on-site store?

180 Mar 16, 2010 12:24 AM Food safety is critical.

181 Mar 16, 2010 12:29 AM Stay off of my farm!

182 Mar 16, 2010 12:33 AM It is important to that we farmers act as good stewards of 

our livestock/poultry and treat them humanely and I believe 

that most small producers do raise their animals that way. 

Unfortunately, laws that are passed to regulate the larger 

factory type farming often end up doing more harm to small 

farmers than to the targeted large producers. Instead of 

having animal rights groups and governmental bodies 

legislating how we must raise our animals I'd prefer to see 

farmers police themselves. I think the public is increasingly 

willing to purchase from farmers who do raise their animals 

in a humane and natural way and that's great incentive to 

do it right.

183 Mar 16, 2010 2:24 AM Please stop HSUS and PETA!

184 Mar 16, 2010 2:45 AM Consolidation, integration, concentration, and agribusiness 

have created pseudo farmers and destroyed the rural 

agricultural base.

185 Mar 16, 2010 2:46 AM State board of health seems to be the best to judge the 

welfare of animals.

186 Mar 16, 2010 4:02 AM I think most of these initiatives are a smoke screen for an 

agenda to do away with food animal agriculture and to 

impose radical views that we should all be vegetarians. I 

guess then, they will protest against killing plants by 

harvesting them. We (independent farmers) are nothing if 

not stewards of our land and our animals. If we didn't take 

care of them, we wouldn't last long in this business. We do 

not want more regulations. The marketplace is a far more 

powerful change agent than any bureaucrat.

187 Mar 16, 2010 6:13 AM Regulation doesn't always produce the desired change. It 

is possible to fill the letter of the law without filling the spirit 

of the law. 'Over regulation' can be costly and hard for 

small farmers. What is more humane? A handful of 

chickens in a small coop with free range or those same 

chickens more protected from the elements and predators 

in a modern henhouse. I bet the chickens would pick the 

free range life. Also, I am 100% for humane treatment of all 
170

animals (including those used for food) but I am also a 

carnivore. I don't want a vegan from a city who has no idea 

about food production voting on how I should raise a 

chicken.

188 Mar 16, 2010 9:38 AM Concentrated feed operations are morally unacceptable, 

economically non-sustainable, and their cruel animal 

husbandry practices and should be discontinued. (Some 

small/medium livestock producers have also established 

unacceptable practices.) These operations contribute to 

excess use of antibiotics, parasiticides and other chemicals 

which should be used strategically, not prophylacticly. 

California has passed legislation affecting CAFOs for 

chickens; Maine for hogs. I strongly suggest a model 

comparable to the national organic program but not limited 

to organic, establishing clear rules and guidance for good 

livestock husbandry practices, charge an annual inspection 

fee, permit independent NFPs as implementers, voluntary 

for the farmer, and so forth. While it would be better to 

pass a federal law affecting all farms, experience in the 

NOP demonstrates that the voluntary nature combined 

with a measured implementation has more or less 

improved NOP over the past several years. In addition, it 

seems unlikely we'd muster the political will to pass a 

comprehensive law affecting all livestock farmers.

189 Mar 16, 2010 9:58 AM No CAFO, no GMO feed, no hormones, no pesticides. If a 

farmer does not have adequate space to allow the animals 

to live normal lives (eating grass in pasture, roaming 

around the farm, etc.) then he has no business having the 

animals at all. Cows don't eat grain, chickens aren't 

vegetarian and pigs will stay clean if given adequate 

space. Don't hassle small scale organic producers with 

hand-tying expensive regulations; they don't contribute 

negatively to the food safety issues that happen. Let folks 

sell at the corner or farmer's market and focus on cleaningup the industrialized food system which is focused only on 

money and that is never a good idea.

190 Mar 16, 2010 11:04 AM It’s a complete outrage that organizations like HSUS 

(humane Society of the united states) and PETA are 

defrauding the public and officials with untrue claims and 

lies. Trying to push for what they call animal rights while at 

the same time they don’t support any local or state 

Humane Societies. My opinion is that the health of the beef 

industry or the meat market needs to have people that 

know and work in the industry not some organization like 

HSUS that has absolutely no idea or knowledge of the 

industry. What HSUS and PETA are doing is using 

donated dollars (this is from their fraudulent or lying 
171

advertisement to get members) and trying to buy votes or 

make wild accusations with no research or proof. I believe 

the industry is on the right track with agricultural staff 

boards that know what they are doing. NOT some radical 

organizations like HSUS OR PETA.

191 Mar 16, 2010 11:35 AM The best assurance of good quality and healthful food is 

for the customer to be able to come to the farm where his 

or her food is raised and see the animals and their care. 

Anything short of this is just window dressing.

192 Mar 16, 2010 11:36 AM Bad Idea. Many people want unrealistic goals for animal 

welfare. Look at horses, none can be killed in the US so 

you have animals all over the country being neglected.

193 Mar 16, 2010 12:08 PM I found this to be a poor survey. When a question is asked 

regarding the impact of a new regulation it is impossible to 

give an informed opinion when no detail is provided. I had 

to answer most questions as "not sure". 

In addition the survey appeared to be trying to create a 

bias against animal welfare legislation.

194 Mar 16, 2010 12:53 PM Frankly, the initiative process to implement animal welfare 

regulations is sufficiently new that I don't know anyone who 

really knows the consequences. We've been told, by 

special interest groups on both sides, what the 

consequences will be, but their opinions reflect their 

special interests.

195 Mar 16, 2010 1:02 PM We are already over-regulated. We are already good 

caretakers of our animals and land. Government and 

"groups" need to back off. Our food supply is the best and 

cheapest in the world. Caring for the animals is good 

management. Abuse by non-supervised workers on large 

scale farms should be reported on an individual basis, as 

with any animal cruelty circumstance. People who are not 

farmers should not be making these decisions.

196 Mar 16, 2010 1:12 PM Without them, animals will continue suffering.

197 Mar 16, 2010 1:16 PM Regulations need to be instituted by producers w/outside 

verification. Groups that have never raised animals should 

have input, but they should not be the final say. All groups 

involved in the process should lay out their sponsorships, 

funding and agenda's(pro-meat/vegan, etc)

198 Mar 16, 2010 1:25 PM I THINK THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH CONTROL AS IT IS. 

THERE SHOULD NOT BE CHANGES AT THIS TIME. 

THIS IS THE FIRST THAT I HAVE HEARD OF THIS 

"BALLOT INITIATIVE". WHO CAME UP WITH THIS 
172

IDEA??? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE 

GOING. MORE CONTROL IS NOT A GOOD THING, IT 

WILL DRIVE UP THE COST FOR EVERYONE...

199 Mar 16, 2010 1:29 PM Ballot initiatives range from the Proposition 2 in California 

to Ohio's ballot initiative to current proposed changes to 

the clean water act. To say how "initiatives" will affect 

agriculture is too broad.

200 Mar 16, 2010 2:01 PM Neither good ballot initiative nor good legislation can be 

accomplished by voters or legislators, respectively, who fail 

to craft their law upon science-based fact. This is the 

greatest risk to formulating appropriate regs and law on 

this subject. Animal producers & handlers have a moral 

responsibility to handle animals humanely. We must not 

project human-like characteristics upon animals as we 

seek to define 'humane'. The debate must be kept in the 

realm of science.

201 Mar 16, 2010 3:01 PM Authors of any initiatives/regulations need to get out in the 

field and witness the daily details involved in agriculture. 

They need to see operations of all types and sizes at all 

stages of the production cycle. Hopefully that will give them 

the apparently missing insight into the impact of words on 

paper on the livelihood of farmers.

202 Mar 16, 2010 4:51 PM Your questions were so vague that I had no idea to what 

you were referring. I cannot have an opinion on such 

vague questions. The survey would be more valuable if 

you have an actual amendment or law to discuss.

203 Mar 16, 2010 4:52 PM Neither of the extremes will work.

204 Mar 16, 2010 5:03 PM Your question: "What size is your farm?" is not a good one 

when linked to acreage. We have over 1,000 acres so I 

must answer large farm. Yet we are a small farm. In our 

part of the country it is common to have large amounts of 

acreage in forest plus some in pasture and some in crops. 

In other parts of the country it is the norm that all acres are 

in crops. Some very large farms (CAFOs) have only a few 

acres. Thus the answer to the question is irrelevant. I 

would suggest deleting or heavily commenting that 

question to this issue.

205 Mar 16, 2010 5:08 PM no comment

206 Mar 16, 2010 7:56 PM PEOPLE THAT RAISE ANIMALS FOR CONSUMPTION 

BY OTHERS SHOULD NOT BE PUT UNDER A GOV'T 

MICROSCOPE. LET US EAT AND DRINK WHAT WE 

LIKE. NO GOV'T INTERVENTION. WE CAN EAT FROM 
173

THE GOV'T ENFORCED FARMS OR EAT FROM THE 

SMALL FARMER.....BUT IT SHOULD BE OUR CHOICE!

207 Mar 16, 2010 7:58 PM Less government is always better no matter what the 

subject!

208 Mar 16, 2010 8:04 PM DON'T THINK THROUGH RAMIFICATIONS. Farmer’s 

self-interest is to provide a safe, healthy environment for 

max production & efficiency -- animals do not perform as 

well in poor environments which reduces profits. Animal 

welfare activists have no clue - but are first to run to 

hospital when they don't feel good or are under stress and 

perform below standard. It would be to their boss's 

advantage to provide a safe healthy work environment!

209 Mar 16, 2010 8:07 PM Some of the questions regarding impact on farmers, food 

quality, and on communities should also have asked: will 

the impact be negative or positive. I think communities will 

be positively affected. I think large producers will be 

negatively affected.

210 Mar 16, 2010 8:30 PM Both ballot initiative and regulation serve to put those with 

the least amount of knowledge and experience in animal 

agriculture in control of animal husbandry, resulting in 

unreasonable demands and expectations being placed on 

those of us responsible for feeding this hungry world.

211 Mar 16, 2010 8:48 PM The consolidation of industrialized agriculture, with its 

global tentacles, is ruining wholesome food in this country, 

in the world! The US is a net importer of food, we don't 

even grow enough beef to feed ourselves. Local food, and 

that free of regulations, is what will save communities in 

the case of a disaster. We have government that is too big, 

growing bigger every day, and ruining rural America. 

Lastly, the government cannot legislate morals, commonsense, or animal welfare. Can't be done.

212 Mar 16, 2010 8:55 PM The public/consumer should be given the FACTS on how 

animals for food are raised including what they are fed, 

how they are housed, how they are slaughtered and 

processed. The CONSUMER should be allowed to choose 

where and from whom they would like to purchase their 

food product. The laws and regulations concerning who 

can sell packaged meat to consumers and how that 

transaction may take place are totally against the small 

producer. If a processor/butcher is inspected by a State 

agency that should be sufficient. I doubt a ballot initiation 

would be beneficial because consumers [thus voters] have 

not learned the FACTS concerning the manner in which 

factory farms produce 'typical' grocery store fare.
174

213 Mar 16, 2010 9:08 PM Until a ballot initiative or regulation is passed nothing is 

affected. Government needs to do less effecting.

214 Mar 16, 2010 9:12 PM You should be aware that there are no 'animal welfare' 

groups or legislation; all are animal *rights* groups and 

legislative efforts, and have been for some time. If you are 

not aware of this, you need to do some research. Animal 

rights groups emphatically do not represent the general 

population, they are extremist activists.

215 Mar 16, 2010 9:27 PM The public needs to be educated on the dangers of 

CAFO's - especially the danger of contamination with fecal 

material. CAFO's may produce cheap meat, but at what 

cost to the well-being of animals and the health and safety 

of those who eat factory farm meat? Ballot initiatives will 

work only if people understand what they're voting for. 

Although there is increased awareness of the suffering 

animals raised on factory farms endure, much more needs 

to be done to educate the public as a whole.

216 Mar 16, 2010 9:28 PM To have a meaningful ballot initiative, you first need 

someone to write it effectively. The persons responsible for 

this survey do not know the conventions of common 

grammar and language usage. Please review a reference 

for correct use of prepositions. Secondly, you have to have 

an opportunity for the voting public to become accurately 

educated on the issue upon which the vote will be cast. It 

seems that many are casting votes based on emotional 

sway in the media. Rural farming income is tied to animal 

welfare. The farming majority treat their animals very well 

since they are interdependent. People far removed from 

the actual business of farming are designing the 

"education" for the public. Perhaps to get an accurate 

referendum and an educated public we need to create a 

connectedness between politics and the affected. Bring the 

legislators to the farms. Bring the voters to the farms or 

take the farms to the voters via accurate, statistically 

significant information and video. Keep it simple, accurate 

and factual. Leave the emotional outcry in the daytime 

soap operas.

217 Mar 16, 2010 9:40 PM I don't mind smaller scale (state by state) initiatives for 

better animal welfare and related topics. I am STRONGLY 

AGAINST any such thing as mandated premises 

registration or NAIS-style animal ID, which would only 

serve to encumber farmers with huge time and money 

costs while not protecting AT ALL against diseases. 

Science as well as common sense and our constitutional 

right to privacy are all against that sort of law.
175

218 Mar 16, 2010 10:07 PM I think that letting the average person have a huge say in 

how animals are raised will be catastrophic to agriculture. 

The average person is so ignorant of how their food is 

produced that they will be led by the nose by PETA and 

HSUS whose goal it is to abolish all animal agriculture and 

pet ownership. They will also be unaware of why a bill can 

favor big industrial farms and penalize small farms in 

placing unfair requirements on them while the big farms 

have easier regulations. The public has the right to ask for 

clean, healthy food that is not too expensive. Considering 

how many Americans are overweight (including myself) it 

would not hurt us to pay more and eat less. Animals need 

to be treated humanely. An unstressed animal butchers 

out at a higher weight and has a better taste. It is in 

everyone's interest to be as humane as you can. A fair 

balance between all these factors needs to be found.

219 Mar 16, 2010 10:42 PM The consumers and small farmers seem to be the people 

who suffer the most from most of the governments 

intrusions. The corporate factory 'farmers' seem to buy 

their way out of or around the regs. for the most part. The 

small farmer really can't afford to kill their customers and 

will do their best to provide a quality product. A $1000 fine 

could be the end of a small farmer but the big factory 

farmers could care less about fines. They can afford 

lawyers too. As I see it the rules only serve to consolidate 

our food supply while lowering food quality. It also lowers 

the quality of life not only for the people who are 

increasingly forced to eat what the factory farms churn out 

but also for the people who would like to run a small farm.

220 Mar 16, 2010 11:02 PM Most voters and bureaucrats have no idea how their food 

is grown, produced or marketed. We have one of the 

safest and most efficient food supplies in the world and the 

best way to destroy it would be to allow ignorant voters and 

idiot bureaucrats to make farming decisions for those of us 

actually doing the farming.

221 Mar 16, 2010 11:06 PM The change needed is to greatly regulate the assembly 

line factory farming: conditions are barbaric. Regulations 

should not protect the agribusiness large corporate 

organizations, and be detrimental to small and medium 

farms and ranchers. Problems with food safety are located 

within the slaughter and processing plants, not on the 

range or pasture where animals are raised.

222 Mar 16, 2010 11:30 PM We have had a wholesome food supply so far, leave 

people alone. WE know what we are doing, the 

government does NOT.
176

223 Mar 16, 2010 11:31 PM All regulations and initiatives should be local. Any food 

producer that chooses to export food should be prepared 

to have input and then follow subsequent regulations. In 

other words, the market for which the farmer is producing 

should set the standard. Ballot language should reflect the 

principal that animals raised for food should be clearly 

identified by the farm model, i.e. large, industrial, small, 

feed quality (organic, conventional,) etc. If that is done, 

and I do believe that there are many markets, all should 

have access to the type and quality at a price that is 

desirable to the consumer. We can be successful with 

choice, not coercion.

224 Mar 16, 2010 11:40 PM Increased regulations won't do the job - there are always 

loop holes. We do NOT need a government to dictate what

wholesome, natural foods we can eat. Industrial food 

production is poisoning our water, polluting the air, killing 

the people with all the abuses resulting from the unbridled 

greed of corporations that have total control over many of 

our food markets AND our legislators in Washington. Doing 

away with ALL regulations between local farmer and 

consumer (direct retail sales) is first and most important to 

flourishing, healthy, communities. We MUST keep our local 

food traditions alive. Consumers are getting smarter all the 

time about the hidden dangers in our food that have been 

put upon us without our permission, hidden behind lax 

labeling regs and lax "food" regs, i.e., GMOs and nanoparticles in food and personal products. HFCS is 

everywhere and look at the diabetes epidemic that we ALL 

pay for.

225 Mar 16, 2010 11:41 PM Industrial ag production methods fail to take into account 

the needs and natural environment of the animal. Attempts 

to increase production thru intensive confinement, subtherapeutic antibiotic use and growth promotants make a 

bad situation worse. When these practices are brought to 

public attention the public is so repulsed that regulation 

and ballot initiatives result. The lack of respect for animals 

and humans in industrial ag systems needs to be 

eliminated and natural systems should be emphasized as 

much as possible. This will result in higher quality food with 

less risk to consumers and farmers. We are what we eat. 

We should not be repulsed by how food animals are raised

226 Mar 16, 2010 11:50 PM NAIS and other animal ID programs will knock out small 

producers who take care of and raise healthy animals. 

These programs benefit corporate ag with no benefit to the 

animals raised on factory farms. Not sure what your goal is 

in this poll but govt should keep its hands off private 
177

enterprises such as small family farms raising quality foods 

and quit taking bribes from big ag to regulate small farms 

out of existence.

227 Mar 16, 2010 11:55 PM I was married to a farmer in the Midwest. We farmed over 

2,000 acres and had a herd of dairy cows. What put us out 

of business was the seed companies with their GM seeds, 

cost of fuel and equipment. In order to make a profit with 

the dairy cattle we were forced to utilize practices that were 

not in the animal's best welfare. We quit dairy farming, 

then soon after sold the farm. It wasn't worth the grief and 

our health problems.

228 Mar 17, 2010 12:39 AM Many people who seek to regulate food animal agriculture 

are not aware of the realities of the small farmer - most 

work other jobs to support the farm and any extra cost can 

break the farmer. Factory farming is inhumane but it does 

keep the cost of the product to an affordable level. 

Unfortunately most small farmers do not have a paid 

lobbyist to speak for them. Farm Bureau does try but big 

factory [farms] have bigger voices. The closing of horse 

slaughter houses has created a hardship on people who 

have unwanted horses and has allowed inhumane 

transport for animals to be slaughtered in Mexico and 

Canada.

229 Mar 17, 2010 1:15 AM Remember that small and medium size farms should not 

be lumped in with large commercial farm operations. We 

need cleaner, more healthy food, not irradiated, not GMO, 

the cleaner (lack of pesticides and plant poisons) the 

better. Regulations that encourage small and medium 

farmers to stay in business.

230 Mar 17, 2010 1:55 AM Regulations will target small producers, not just CAFO's. 

Big Ag corporations will make sure the regulations are 

stifling enough so only they could comply, and no small 

producer could afford it. Speaking of affording it, costs 

would increase to the consumer, in our present economy 

food costs escalating would not be a positive effect. From 

what I perceive, consumers do have some choices at 

grocery stores. The reason they do not have more is: small 

producers have already been regulated out of business; 

and consumers do not want to pay more money for 

humanely raised animals, they buy what is on sale. 

Regarding the regulating small producers out of business: 

for example, I humanely raise a steer on pasture and feed. 

I cannot sell a single pound of that meat to anyone, even if 

the steer is processed at a licensed and inspected butcher 

shop. The butcher can legally buy my steer, and sell the 

meat, but I cannot. As for my free-range chickens and 
178

turkeys, illegal, even if I sold them to a processor. Yeah, 

we need more regulations !!!!!

231 Mar 17, 2010 2:00 AM The American consumer has grown accustomed to cheap, 

plentiful food. Many, perhaps >50%, will resist paying more 

for food, even though they may agree that cheap food 

comes at a steep cost to animal welfare, the environment, 

and rural communities. There's a growing awareness by 

the public of this cost, and very gradually awareness has 

made more people willing to pay more for food that is 

produced humanely and sustainably. However, this 

remains a tiny fraction of Americans. Bottom line is that we 

all need to pay more for food to reflect its true cost of 

production. Ballot initiatives/regulations may be the only 

way to affect this, as our current system sure doesn't.

232 Mar 17, 2010 2:12 AM People who know nothing about livestock (but think they 

do) shouldn't be making rules for people who actually do 

know livestock. That's common sense - something that is 

in very short supply in this country right now.

233 Mar 17, 2010 2:34 AM In my experience, the general public has very limited 

knowledge of agriculture and cannot make informed 

decisions for producers.

234 Mar 17, 2010 2:39 AM There are too many variables to lump all "ballot initiatives" 

together. I'm okay with outlawing debeaking or mandating 

a minimum cage size for chickens but believe that 

regulations are best made by people that know about 

agriculture, not by animal rights activists that are trying to 

use initiatives as a back-door method of discouraging 

animal product consumption. I am also wary of too much 

gov't involvement such as NAIS.

235 Mar 17, 2010 2:42 AM It seems that these ballot initiatives are intended to curb 

the wretched excesses of CAFOs - which do, indeed, need 

curbing. However, to subject the small farmer who raises 

only a few animals for consumption to the same degree of 

scrutiny and reporting requirements as a large organization 

is ridiculous. Leave those of us who want to feed our 

families - and maybe a fraction of our communities - alone! 

We're not causing the outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant 

illnesses. We're not polluting the waterways. We're not 

creating lagoons of fecal matter. We are raising a small 

number of animals in a responsible manner, butchering 

them humanely, and eating food raised the way animals 

are meant to live. No more regulation!!!

236 Mar 17, 2010 3:40 AM No NAIS
179

237 Mar 17, 2010 4:40 AM No NAIS!!!! No animal ID is needed or wanted!!! STOP GM 

seeds and food products or at the very least LABEL them 

as GM. That is where our food is in jeopardy. Stop cloning 

food animals, fish, cattle, etc. and stop the hormones being 

added to our food supply, milk meat and anything else that 

they are being added to.

238 Mar 17, 2010 5:27 AM Ballot initiatives make urban dwellers feel warm and fluffy 

when they go to the store to buy food but in their ignorance 

they fail to see the huge detriment to those who actually 

produce the food

239 Mar 17, 2010 10:38 AM I saw the movie "FOOD INC.". That is absolutely horrible. 

Then you wonder why we need regulations. Those 

regulations aren't even enough. We are in a no win 

situation. If you add harsher regulations you will most likely 

put the farming industry in greater jeopardy. Since we are 

considered a "Global World" we will have to be dependent 

on countries across the ocean where their regulations don't 

exactly meet ours. For example, China. When do you think 

these large poultry industries are going to close doors and 

move overseas to save costs? I saw enough in the auto 

industry. I always try to buy American made products even 

though it costs a tad more. I always buy local or grown in 

USA. I hope I didn't go too far off the topic. Thank you.

240 Mar 17, 2010 10:49 AM Commodity groups and Extension personnel working 

together should be able to develop safety and best 

practices for consumer safety and at the same time, 

maximize production while keeping production costs and 

consumer costs at a minimum.

241 Mar 17, 2010 12:38 PM I believe that large factory farms and special interests are 

best served by additional government regulations 

BECAUSE increased costs to comply will drive small farms 

out of business. Small farms ALREADY take sufficient care 

of their animals; they HAVE TO, because losing any 

number creates a financial hardship or noticeably 

decreased profit. Large/factory farms are where disease 

perpetuates due to inhumane conditions. MORE 

regulation/oversight by IMPARTIAL parties is needed for 

LARGE farming operations ONLY.

242 Mar 17, 2010 12:50 PM While it may be well intentioned, the fact is that these 

animal welfare initiatives will be negative, as they have 

been in Europe, and that larger entities (able to affect 

regulations at their writing in the US) will be better able to 

handle the additional fees and paperwork than small scale 

truly decent growers. The independent farmer does not 

need certification, just the opportunity to market their wares 
180

without undue influence. These initiatives are not going to 

improve access to good, quality, non GMO, food for 

consumers. I could go on for hours with stats and 

international examples, but suffice to say, let people be the 

deciders without regulation. We are smart enough to eat 

without a bureaucrat involved.

243 Mar 17, 2010 12:56 PM We need small farmers and diverse crops and NO gmo 

products. No NAIS programs that are intrusive. Keep 

PETA and Humane Society people out of the equation as 

they are mostly city people without a clue on what farms 

need or how they are run.

244 Mar 17, 2010 1:16 PM The only way a producer can make money is to take 

GOOD care of her livestock. When those without adequate 

knowledge of animal husbandry get involved in dictating 

how producers handle their livestock, it can only lead to 

higher prices, loss of small producers and more

concentration into the hands of a few. The purpose of 

some of these advocates of “animal rights” is actually only 

interested in stopping all animal agriculture. This is 

unfortunate for our eating enjoyment, our health and the 

livelihood of our producers.

245 Mar 17, 2010 2:11 PM It is imperative that before regulation of food production 

leads to elimination of "small" (less than $30K per year) 

profit farms - the reason why CAFOs are being expanded 

should be addressed. In a nutshell - why is the DOJ 

investigating large agricultural concerns and the effect on 

small farmers/producers? Where there is smoke - there is 

fire.

246 Mar 17, 2010 3:03 PM I was disappointed that your survey's question 2 asking 

who should regulate farms and food production- whether it

should be by state legislature, producers' groups, ballot 

initiative, or market forces, provided no "not sure" 

response, as there was for most other questions. I did not 

want to answer the question, because I do not feel that any 

one of these answers is appropriate in all circumstances. 

The voice of concerned citizens is important in animal 

welfare and food safety issues, so ballot initiatives have 

their place. States have food safety standards to uphold, 

so legislatures need to weigh in from time to time. Market 

forces influence food production as a matter of course. But 

of course in most cases it is the farmers and producers 

who are best qualified and most knowledgeable in selfregulation. That said, I totally distrust big agribusiness and 

large-scale producers to self-regulate and consider large 

agribusiness a threat to small-scale agriculture and to food, 

human, and animal safety and welfare. Any regulations 
181

should focus on larger, rather than smaller producers, as 

they are the source of most of the problems we see in 

agriculture, they threaten smaller farmers, and they 

routinely violate animal welfare and food safety standards. 

It is important that regulations do not have the unintended 

effect of hurting smaller producers, as these are generally 

the producers with the highest standards of food and 

animal safety, and they benefit local economies, rather 

than multinational corporations.

247 Mar 17, 2010 3:25 PM The ballot initiatives put to a vote have the support of the 

people and are not arbitrary rules and regulations enacted 

by politicians or government workers that do not know a 

thing about farming and especially small scale 

environmentally friendly family farming and the 

consequences of excessive regulations and rules on them 

financially.

248 Mar 17, 2010 3:49 PM There are too many regulations that are not appropriate for 

small operations and not enough help with infrastructure 

projects, regulatory fees and labor costs that are the result 

of these regulations. My ducks are being counted and 

treated like cattle - which has put me in a position of CAFO 

with the Dept of Agriculture. I have been told by different 

sources that I have too small an operation (under 500 total 

poultry and waterfowl) to even make a dent in the local 

aquaculture [sic] however I must spend over $500 annually 

in licensing fees to keep my farm since they threatened to 

take it away if I don't cooperate. I didn't think that 

communistic governing was alive and well in the USA.

249 Mar 17, 2010 4:16 PM DEMAND EFFICIENCY of grain used in any state for 

animal production! BEEF INDUSTRY uses the MOST 

GRAIN and is LEAST EFFICIENT w/ LOWEST HEALTH 

benefits. Grains and grasses fed to a cow will get you one 

pound of meat. THE SAME amount fed to a rabbit gets SIX 

POUNDS of meat. READ the 29 True Facts about 

RABBITS: http://www.ardengrabbit.com/facts.html A rabbit 

breeding female can DOUBLE body weight in edible 

protein meat in just 4 MONTHS which includes the 31 days 

gestation. This is the same as a 1,000 pound 2 yr heifer 

giving you 2,000 lbs of packaged meat in 4 months? NOT! 

Cow gives birth to a 150 lb calf in 9 months, by that time 

the rabbit will have doubled itself AGAIN ! More details at: 

http://permacultureactivist.net/articles/rabbits.htm

250 Mar 17, 2010 4:33 PM Having a legislator make rules/laws about farming is like 

having a dental hygienist make rules about brain surgery. 

Nuf said
182

251 Mar 17, 2010 4:34 PM Ballot initiatives allow the consumer to voice their views. 

Other methods strongly favor the positions of large 

businesses and organizations which have the resources to 

hire lobbyists and lawyers. Regulations frequently are 

rigged to favor large businesses by imposing the same 

requirements on small farmers and homesteaders.

252 Mar 17, 2010 4:45 PM Unnecessary regulations inflict increased costs on small 

farm growers/producers while adding nothing to the end 

product quality, supply, or security.

253 Mar 17, 2010 6:06 PM Breakup the large factory farms since they are not good for 

people or animals. Their waste is put into holes that 

overflow during rains thus contaminating surrounding 

areas. Stress of the animals in their setting is great and 

really doesn't make the meat better. Though tests have not 

been really done, I feel that the various chemicals given 

the animals to keep them from getting sick as well as the 

space limitations cause the animals/fowls to have to lay or 

stand in their own feces making conditions unsanitary.

254 Mar 17, 2010 6:07 PM People in urban areas, that know little about animal 

agriculture should not have the right to decide what 

regulations are best for farmers. Allow the state agencies 

to regulate the aspects that they feel need to be mandated. 

I don't tell them how to do their job, and I would appreciate 

the same respect from them. They must realize that most 

farmers go above and beyond adequate care for their 

animals. It is just the natural nature of a farmer. We are 

good people, and do not need outside advocate groups 

telling us we are not.

255 Mar 17, 2010 8:09 PM The public is stupid. Ballot Initiatives only work for the 

extremely well funded - whatever side they are on.

256 Mar 17, 2010 9:17 PM The current problems with food safety and agriculture in 

most cases are the effect of improper to no oversight at the 

large slaughter and packing houses; not the farms 

themselves. More regulations just drive the diversity out of 

farming and ranching and consolidate it into the larger 

corporate farms and ranches. It makes our farms and 

agriculture much more vulnerable to safety issues as well 

as susceptible to outbreaks. This has been proven to be 

the case in other countries. Why would we in the USA 

want to emulate the failed programs of others?

257 Mar 17, 2010 11:29 PM The only people who are educated and qualified enough to 

regulate what happens on an agricultural operation are 

farmers and ranchers who have worked with these animals 

every day of their lives. We have spent the majority of our 

lives studying and caring for our animals. It is crazy to think 
183

that a person who does not have any knowledge or 

experience with any kind of animals is qualified to regulate 

our operations. If you research any of these animal rights 

groups you will quickly find that many of their leaders do 

not even own pets. We raise food animals for 

consumption, that does not mean we do not care any less 

about them and for us to have to justify the things we do 

that are in the best interest of these animals to someone 

who does not even have a cat is stupid. If we need a 

regulatory board then fine, but write bylaws that require the 

members to have a lifetime of experience in animal 

agriculture. The United States is a strong country because 

we have a strong agricultural industry. That industry is 

under attack from a minority of people armed with false 

advertising who are deliberately trying to destroy 

agriculture. They are elitists who believe they know better 

than anyone else when they have no idea what they are 

doing. We are an industry of family businesses, not big 

corporations like they would have you believe. We live with 

these animals. Just from something as simple as a moo we 

can tell the difference between a mother cow calling her 

calf, one that lost her calf and one that is fighting for her 

calf's life. That is something you can't learn in college. 

There is no person better qualified to care for these 

animals than farmers. Let us take care of them.

258 Mar 17, 2010 11:33 PM Too much regulations and stupid little laws that help out 

the big guys and keep the small guys paying higher prices 

to produce!!!

259 Mar 18, 2010 3:26 AM The government or any so called organization should keep 

out of this business. The problem that exists, is we need to 

go back to old farming methods. Lower the cost of all 

farming from feed, grain, fuel, fertilizers, etc. and let the 

farmer go back to raising animals that will produce without 

drugs or fancy regulated methods. I traveled to Panama 

recently and visited many farms and they are farming just 

like my father did back in the 50s. It was hard work but we 

had good clean animals and they produced naturally. Let’s 

take a chicken for example: I ate a chicken in Panama that 

was raised from eating on open ground and the skin was 

almost orange and the flavor of the eggs, as well as the 

meat was so delicious. But if you buy a chicken in the 

grocery in the states it has been pumped with so much 

hormones and garbage that it has hardly any flavor and 

Very likely not good for you to eat. I blame this on the 

bleeding heart organizations, as well as those idiots we 

supposedly elected to run our country. Thank you for 

letting me put my input in.
184

260 Mar 18, 2010 4:01 AM The most damaging thing that can happen to small farmers 

who are raising healthy food animals in a low stress 

environment is the national animal identification system. 

The best thing that can happen is to promote local food 

supply by not adding costs and work to local producers.

261 Mar 18, 2010 9:47 AM Most farmers know that to get the most out of their 

livestock, they must use humane practices. Animal do not 

have rights. People do.

262 Mar 18, 2010 11:48 AM We have to be savvy to what the consumer wants. As 

farmers we need to do a better job connecting with 

consumers/farmers. The vertical integration in agriculture 

has given black eyes to agriculture in the eyes of 

consumers. Rural America prospers when there is a 

diverse agricultural production that fosters agribusiness 

that support rural communities and ultimately preserves a 

local food supply to consumers. We have to come 

together...

263 Mar 18, 2010 11:56 AM These were terrible questions. The proposed welfare 

measures do not improve the welfare of the animals and 

most producers like me will not go back to pens and 

fighting sows and the problems that are associated with 

that. We have already 'been there and done that'. The 

independent producers are planning exit strategies and are 

not planning on bringing the next generation back to the 

farm. Large, integrated producers will be able to brand and 

market their supposed 'efforts' to improve animal welfare. 

Others will get out of sows and production leading to more 

foreign production from Russia, Asia and South America. If 

changes are better for the animals, they will be adapted 

readily by producers; if not, then it is strictly marketing and 

my conscience will not allow me to do it. Change should 

not be dictated by activist groups who are only after money 

and a public that has no idea of how animals are 

produced. This dialog should include producers, food 

animal veterinarians, animal behavior specialists and 

university specialists. The current debate includes none of 

these.

264 Mar 18, 2010 12:09 PM Farmers love their animals whether they are large or small. 

Because of financial pressure animals lose because 

farmers may have to cut labor or other animal welfare aids 

temporarily because the farmer has no place to pass these 

expenses on to. If consumers want farmers mandated to 

perform certain levels of animal welfare then farmers 

deserve price discovery based on higher costs of 

production. Farmers should not be subsidized for this by a 
185

Government who is broke. The marketplace must return 

the proper sustainable levels of income back to the farm.

265 Mar 18, 2010 1:23 PM (States which don't allow ballot initiatives SHOULD.) As for 

ballot initiatives creating changes in food animal 

agriculture...the voting public is less corruptible than the 

legislature...

266 Mar 18, 2010 1:39 PM The ballot initiative is not the enemy of animal welfare 

advocates and producers. While the public will continue to 

make ignorant decisions, so too with legislative bodies. It is 

important to demonstrate to these people, the advances in 

welfare the industry and veterinary medicine have made to 

improve the lives of our food animals as well as the 

humans they feed. I think producers must acknowledge the 

need for progress which will facilitate a productive and 

economically viable future rather than simply holding up 

our hands and saying "what can we do?" when animal 

rights groups target our livelihood. It is our job to decide 

what to do and we have the knowledge and capability to 

demonstrate and advertise the good work we continue to 

do and the better work we aspire to.

267 Mar 18, 2010 5:07 PM I think legislative regulations need to be driven as much if 

not more by what farmers and producer groups and 

Cooperative Extension are saying as by consumer and 

regulatory agency (FSIS, etc.) concerns. Consumers, even 

rural consumers, for the most part are so distant from farm 

life that they really are ignorant about what we and our 

livestock require to have constructive, healthy lives and 

provide good quality food. We have a crisis with a loss of 

small scale slaughterhouses to service livestock farmers 

with local or instate market demands, and yet regulatory 

agencies still keep mandating more and more regulations 

that fit large slaughterhouses and processors and make 

small processors even more uncompetitive. A one size fits 

all approach does not make sense. Animal welfare 

certification organizations spend too much time mandating 

what conditions animals should be raised under regardless 

of how practical without looking at the mortality rates, 

incidence of disease etc. of individual farms. The Temple 

Grandin approach to certification and scoring which counts 

actual symptoms or measures (air quality etc.) makes a lot 

more sense.

268 Mar 18, 2010 5:41 PM Public does not have enough understanding of animal 

husbandry, animal behavior, farm conditions or food 

production economics to make informed decisions at the 

ballot box.
186

269 Mar 18, 2010 5:49 PM There is a BIG difference between "animal welfare" and 

"animal rights". H$U$ and other so-called "animal 

protection" organizations are in the "animal rights" 

category (and in fact H$U$ is the "animal rights" 

INDUSTRY leader). Their initiatives are aimed at disrupting 

the human/animal bond and making use of animals more

expensive and more difficult. They are less concerned with 

"animal welfare" than they are with the "animal rights" 

agenda of gradually eliminating human use of animals, 

whether for food, clothing, or companion. There are plenty 

of websites out there now that are exposing the "animal 

rights" organizations and their agendas. The more people 

who know about them, the fewer will be taken in by their 

"propaganda mill" BIG LIES.

270 Mar 18, 2010 6:15 PM A problem because a few people can cause changes that 

the majority of people do not understand or want to fund. 

Example -- egg laying chickens having more room.

271 Mar 19, 2010 1:26 AM Grange should support reasonable animal welfare 

initiatives. Farmers benefit both themselves and their 

consumers when humane conditions are maintained. One 

other important point: The more exercise an animal gets, 

the healthier the meat.

272 Mar 19, 2010 3:49 AM Government needs to stay out of private enterprise and let 

the markets work. We need not to worry about foreign 

markets and imports, take care of ourselves first and if we 

run short of product we buy, if we have more than we need 

we sell. The United States has and will always have the 

best products in the world, bar none. We have the best 

farmers and ranchers in the world bar none. We don’t need 

some foreign so and so telling us how to run our business.

273 Mar 19, 2010 5:01 AM Most generally, non farmers are making the rules and 

regulations that farmers have to work under and this is 

creating a huge problem for those who are ACTUALLY 

doing the farming. Yes, farmers are one of the hardest 

working groups in the world and often find it VERY difficult 

to make time for political activity, but they will when against 

the wall. What is and has been going on with governmental 

regulations is all wrong and backwards. Big businesses, 

governmental agents/agencies, politicos, business folks 

and the like make the rules farmers have to operate under 

and it is becoming near impossible to continue producing 

food and fiber. But government in general is WAY out of 

line and creating a deadly situation on many fronts in our 

lives.
187

274 Mar 19, 2010 1:08 PM People behind them are largely city dumb axxxx that have 

no idea what they are talking about.

275 Mar 19, 2010 1:27 PM They are necessary to make sure that producers are 

following the will of the people, however it is important to 

make sure that the public is fully informed as to the 

reasons behind the current practices and what some of the 

consequences will be to changes - financial as well as for 

the well being of all the animals. By eliminating farrowing 

crates we will allow the sow to have greater movement and 

more natural behavior, however, that natural behavior 

includes lying on and smothering a number of her piglets. 

A slow and painful way to die. This will also decrease the 

number of weaned pigs the farmers raise, therefore 

increasing the cost of pork. So this change impacts more 

than just the welfare of the sow.

276 Mar 19, 2010 2:41 PM It is in all producers’ best interest to provide the best 

welfare to the animals in their care, both morally and 

financially. If you really want to test the product quality of 

some of these new initiatives, start buying free range eggs 

and as you break them open to cook count the number of 

eggs that have blood in them. Compare this to the same 

number of " factory farm" eggs. If you care not to see this 

you can just trust me. This is a health issue of the animals 

because a herdsman cannot treat animals and harvest 

produce in a timely manner.

277 Mar 19, 2010 3:04 PM Small farmers who supply a local food exchange should be 

able to do so without government involvement and/or 

restrictions. When the consumer can go to a farm and 

witness how animals are treated and the quality of 

cleanliness/management first hand, then the farmer should 

be free to do his/her work freely (after all it is America, 

where we are supposedly free people). When a large 

corporation produces meat where the consumer cannot 

inspect their food source directly, that is the ONLY time 

that there should be regulations and management from an 

outside entity.

278 Mar 19, 2010 3:38 PM If educated people, by educated, I mean in all phases of 

Agr., make those regs. Most producers can live [sic]

279 Mar 19, 2010 3:50 PM Change should be market driven. If consumers are willing 

to pay the higher cost of production for the use of different 

animal welfare standards, then the industry will respond 

and be able to afford those changes. If they are not willing 

to pay for additional animal welfare practices then why 

implement them? Who will pay the additional costs?
188

280 Mar 19, 2010 5:18 PM I believe your questions are loaded in favor of protecting 

industrial agriculture.

281 Mar 19, 2010 5:58 PM Invasive government control will destroy small farm and 

homesteader agriculture through the ballot box is obscene. 

Having a pen in Washington does not make a legislator 

into a farmer! Stop animal and vegetable farm tracking and 

registration regulations through the balloting for idiot, so 

called political representatives.

282 Mar 19, 2010 10:11 PM While I appreciate your attempt to gather this information, I 

think that many of your survey questions and answers are 

poorly worded and/or incomplete. For example, on 

question 2, a respondent might not think that any of the 

listed responses are a proper source of animal welfare 

regulations, or might have other specific sources of 

regulation in mind, and the categorical responses force an 

answer choice that might not really tell you how 

respondents feel. There were many other such examples 

in your survey. It would be better to have a Likert-type or 

semantic differential scale and ask respondents to rate 

different options rather than to choose among them as 

answers.

283 Mar 19, 2010 11:29 PM Regulating small farmers out of business is ultimate 

suicide for the USA as a free republic. The freedom to 

grow food without government interference is the bedrock 

of a free society. V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian 

revolution made this very clear: '"The Socialist Revolution 

in the US cannot take place because there are too many 

small independent farmers there. Those people are the 

stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our 

government is stupid enough to not encourage and 

support the independent farmership.' V. Lenin, the founder 

of the Russian revolution" The Committee for Economic 

Development after WWII decided there were too many 

farmers here in the USA and in 1964 took steps to reduce 

"excess human resources engaged in agriculture" by two 

million, or by 1/3 of their previous number. CED's plan was 

very successful and resulted in widespread social 

upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric 

of its society destroying its local economies. They also 

resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of 

a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers' 

lives ended in suicide. I am old enough to remember 

before CED implemented their plan in 1964, when 

neighbor helped neighbor and no one bothered to lock the 

doors. Now I still live in a farming community however I 

now have three drug dealers, a murderer and several 

thieves for neighbors and none of the kids can even add 7 
189

plus 8. Tell the CED to take their social re-engineering 

plans to some other country and leave us alone. Get us 

OUT of the World Trade Organization and the United 

Nations. I am not interested in being a "global citizen" with 

a bunch of megalomaniacs running my life.

284 Mar 20, 2010 1:18 AM In no way should we allow (big Brother) the Government, 

to do any mandatory tracking or ID'ing of animals. In no 

way should we allow the government to have that much 

control. Where would it stop, ID’ing people??? To protect 

the food supply we need to grow as much of our own and 

not purchase outside our country and we need more USDA 

regulators at the processing plants. Now that would be a 

good regulation! We need to protect the small to medium 

farmer that cares for their animal's welfare and the welfare 

of the consumer! Protect the rights of the people to grow 

their own food, and not the Big business who only wants 

money.

285 Mar 20, 2010 1:38 AM The outlawing of horse slaughter has had a detrimental 

effect on agricultural producers. Horses are livestock, not 

pets. This ban has cost me and others income that could 

have been realized from old horses that since have had to 

be put down. I am afraid that this is just the first step that 

radical animal rights advocates and groups are going to 

take in their attack on animal agriculture. I believe in 

animal welfare, that animals should be treated good and 

cared for, but I do not believe that animals have rights as 

humans do.

286 Mar 20, 2010 2:44 AM I do not know your goals in this poll but we do not need 

animal tracking or IDs, and most items that you would want 

to push might help some but it will hurt those that are 

already using good practices. Also your use of the word 

ANIMAL WELFARE is the same as animal RIGHTS now 

and that equates to Animal RADICALS.

287 Mar 20, 2010 2:09 PM No matter what the issue, ballot initiatives support a narrow 

perspective. They are brought by minority interests that 

cannot advance their issues through the normal legislative 

process.

288 Mar 20, 2010 4:49 PM Where I indicated I was unsure it was b/c it depends. i.e. 

the impact of rules on rural communities depends on 

whether that industry is a large economic driver in a given 

community. Changes in layer housing rules, for example, 

had little impact on rural communities in California except 

those where there were layer houses.... many of whom are 

looking to move out of the state now. Ultimately that will 

impact the other CA communities by changing tax 
190

revenues etc. The rule making question does not allow the 

answer of a combination of entities, but ultimately that is 

appropriate; producers who raise animals, consumers who 

choose to spend money on the products, ...

289 Mar 20, 2010 5:37 PM If laws are not made by people that will at least consult 

with the agriculture community, agriculture could change 

for the worse very quickly. There has to be more than selfregulation, so all groups have to work together to judge the 

impact.

290 Mar 20, 2010 6:28 PM No comment.

291 Mar 21, 2010 3:56 AM In general, smaller producers are harmed more due to the 

ability of larger companies to acquire financing to meet 

regulatory requirements, and have the scale to better 

implement process changes to meet these needs.

292 Mar 22, 2010 12:48 AM Ballot initiatives should not be used at all. When the total 

population is making decisions about how we are to 

operate our private businesses (and we are less than 1% 

of the population), that is a problem. 

Regulations are intrusive, generally don't address any real 

problems, and cause us to spend time ticking boxes rather 

than caring for our animals. In today's world of information 

sharing, producers of any product get consumer messages 

quickly. The producer has every incentive to care for 

animals in the best possible way, as our profitability 

depends on it. Government intervention props up the bad 

producers at the expense of the good ones. The lack of 

understanding of what it takes to produce is a big concern, 

and educating non-producers is vitally important for our 

future.

293 Mar 22, 2010 2:25 AM It's in animal ag's best interest to work with humane 

organizations to enact compromise reforms rather than 

waging a battle in the ballot box. Whether anyone likes it or 

not, consumers/voters are siding with humane groups so 

let's be proactive and work with these organizations in 

phasing out systems that many in the egg, pork, and veal 

industries are already moving away from.

294 Mar 22, 2010 11:06 AM Ongoing regulations of the food industry will destroy our 

ability to feed our own country. When we get to the point of 

relying on foreign countries for food we will be in dire 

straits. There needs to be a minimal amount of regulatory 

rules to insure that correct practices are in place. Placing 

undue burdens on the backs of our producers and then 

paying low prices for products produced creates a hole in 

the industry of epic proportions.
191

295 Mar 22, 2010 2:28 PM Our Land-grant Universities need to be proactive in the 

support of animal agriculture. What was the purpose of the 

land-grant university? If they are unwilling to support 

animal agriculture, then funding should be removed from 

their budgets. So often the administrators try to castrate 

their faculty and field people in the name of tolerance 

especially when it comes to real agriculture issues. This is 

a critical issue that is important for rural communities. If 

farmers in the U.S. are unable to efficiently produce 

livestock, then we will be sending production overseas 

where there are no regulations on residues or treatment. 

We sent good jobs to China and we have no voice in 

what/or how things are produced. The crop producers will 

suffer as well because animal agriculture and crop 

production are tied together. The U.S. was based on 

choices, not socialism, regulations, requirements, 

mandates, etc. If a person wants a certain production, then 

seek out that type of system and pay accordingly--don't 

legislate it. Too much oppression will ultimately lead to 

revolution.

296 Mar 22, 2010 2:59 PM This survey should be disregarded. This is the xxx for the 

National Grange trying out this survey in order to 

communicate the process of using this survey to our 

members.

297 Mar 22, 2010 4:10 PM Consumers most often purchase the lowest priced, 

comparable quality item. And yet, consumers do not want 

to buy sports shoes created through abusive labor 

practices even when these shoes are cheaper. By the 

same reasoning, consumers do not want to buy food 

produced under conditions that do not promote reasonable 

animal welfare. Consumers do want assurance that their 

product choices are safe, wholesome, environmentally 

friendly, represent fair labor practices, and do not cause 

undo suffering of innocents. Therefore, they should not 

"vote" at the checkout line of the grocery store for animal 

welfare friendly products or fair working condition footwear. 

They should vote at the ballot, for the standards they 

demand for fair labor practices or animal welfare standards 

and then be allowed to use price comparisons once an 

ethically sound baseline has been established.

298 Mar 22, 2010 4:56 PM Farmers responsible for producing any products related to 

food animal agriculture should have a primary role in any 

proposed regulations because they will be the entity most 

affected by these changes. Unless the general public has 

received accurate and comprehensive information on the 

impacts of regulatory changes, especially regarding 
192

increased prices for food products, they can't make 

informed decisions via voter ballot initiatives. I am also 

strongly opposed to elected legislative bodies making 

changes in regulations for a number of reasons. Increased 

government control is not likely to result in anything more 

than increasing the burden of cost already undermining the 

ability of the American farmer and rancher to continue 

producing the excellent quality of agricultural products at 

reasonable prices that the American public currently 

receives and expects.

299 Mar 23, 2010 5:16 PM Government needs to keep their nose out of farming. 

Doubtful most government types have ever seen a real 

farm animal that wasn't on their plate.

300 Mar 23, 2010 6:30 PM While I understand the desire to help and create 

safeguards through mandates I also have seen more and 

more small farmers being forced out of the competition by 

overreaching mandates and certifications. These ultimately 

help Agri-business drive out competition while they 

themselves are unharmed. A perfect example would be the 

combination of "ORGANIC" certification with the fact it is 

ILLEGAL for a product label to say GMO free.

301 Mar 23, 2010 11:02 PM While I don't disagree with the good-hearted intent of 

larger laying cages or gestation crates, the groups pushing 

these ballots have a hidden agenda that will eventually 

drive out even small growers such as me. If I put chickens 

in a movable pen and give them access to pasture, I still 

have confined these poor creatures - according to the 

PETA and HSUS supporters. And God Forbid I actually 

EAT them! I may hurt their feelings and deny them the 

opportunity to live out a "full life" whatever that is to a 

chicken. So where would be the point in raising heritage 

livestock if we can't cull undesirable stock, sell their 

byproducts, and actually use them for sufficiency? And I 

don't kid myself that everyone can afford to eat at the 

prices passed along for meeting endless regulations and 

paperwork.

302 Mar 24, 2010 2:37 PM It is the uneducated majority making the decisions for 

those who are on the front lines. If the public was to be 

required to make informed decisions then ballot initiatives 

would be more balanced.

303 Mar 24, 2010 3:38 PM Regulation is not the way to handle animal welfare 

problems, market demand and education is a much better 

option.
193

304 Mar 24, 2010 5:17 PM We need to get this stopped. It is going to cause food 

costs to rise too high for most Americans.

305 Mar 24, 2010 7:03 PM Animal welfare groups are awful and have no idea about 

farming and animals. PETA and HSUS are prime 

examples. Big AG is bad news, CAFO's need to be gotten 

rid of, but An. Wel. paints ALL farmers with the same 

brush. Small farmers HAVE to care about their animals as 

one illness/death can destroy their breeding program/profit 

for the year. Personally, industrialized nations waste more 

food than they ought-and use too many instant meals. 

Maybe if food prices went up a bit there would be less 

waste. And that certainly would be a plus for all concerned. 

Ballots-NO WAY!! Non farmers are clueless. REGS for BIG 

AG only!

306 Mar 24, 2010 7:58 PM Farms do not need any further regulations from the 

government. Government regulates too much now. People 

who do not know anything about agriculture do not need to 

be telling people who grow our feed how to do it or what 

they can or cannot do. Keep the do-gooders out of 

agriculture. Farmers know how to look after their animals, 

and if their income depends on good production, they will 

do what is necessary to properly care for their animals.

307 Mar 24, 2010 8:03 PM ANY INITIATIVE THAT REQUIRES FARMERS TO 

CERTIFY AND TAG ANIMALS IS A VERY BAD IDEA.

308 Mar 24, 2010 8:16 PM The current U. S. food production system is broken and 

needs a major overhaul. The only way this is going to 

happen is via consumers speaking out and it appears the 

paradigm shift has begun.

309 Mar 25, 2010 7:57 PM Smithfield put the small swine producer out of business 

and created corporate farms. This devastated many rural 

communities. Pilgrim’s Pride chicken purchased a chicken 

plant in Douglas Ga. and shut it down devastating Coffee 

and surrounding Counties. These are the things that 

concern producers. The government usually only muddies 

up the water when they get involved and do not care about 

farmers since they make up only 2% of population.

310 Mar 25, 2010 10:57 PM We do not need change and regulations in animal 

agriculture that is imposed by a public that is easily swayed 

by falsehoods, emotion and misrepresentation. Change is 

not always good. Case in point, our present 

administration!!!!!!

311Mar 26, 2010 1:16 AM I think the majority of our population does not understand 

modern agriculture and I fear that having a ballot initiative 

would give them the idea that what we are doing now is 
194

wrong and voting yes or no will make it better. The initiative 

would appear that the government is going to impose more 

regulations to make sure the consumer has a better 

product. Without knowing the added cost to consumers, 

lost income for farmers, and less tax revenue just to name 

a few things, who would vote against it?

312 Mar 26, 2010 2:30 AM Ballot initiatives may tend to play on emotion, 

misconceptions, and misinformation, rather than proven 

science.

313 Mar 26, 2010 2:35 PM I do not see the purpose to the media, of the ballot to 

regulate our animal food supply. Consumers want a safe, 

high quality, and affordable product and I believe that 

today’s regulations provide this. I believe that approaching 

the mass population about how the animal food industry 

would be detrimental for those of us that make our 

livelihood. The general population doesn't have a cursory 

understanding of how the end product is derived; 

therefore, asking for a consensus would not be mode to 

advancing the industry. The market will dictate the 

direction.

314 Mar 26, 2010 8:27 PM Any mandate animal tracking programs would have a 

severe impact on agriculture and particularly on the small 

producer as they need to add genetically different animals 

to their herds to keep from inbreeding undesirable traits 

and sometimes these additions come from out-of-state. 

Voter approved animal care mandates have a severe 

impact on animal caretakers as these mandates are largely 

decided upon by an uneducated and emotionally charged 

public who respond to emotional pleas, instead of wellthought-out discussions on the subject.

315 Mar 26, 2010 11:02 PM none

316 Mar 28, 2010 6:07 PM We need not change, government needs to stay out of it.

317 Mar 29, 2010 5:50 PM How can laity and especially elected officials keep up with 

the latest improvements and technology in animal 

agriculture? We live in a specialized society in which it is 

prudent to let the experts do what they do best. We don't 

want inexperienced or untrained mechanics, plumbers, 

electricians, doctors or any other specialist, so why would 

we want untrained animal caretakers dictating policy?

318 Mar 29, 2010 9:10 PM Regulations should be based on science and best 

practices. The best care of animals is in the best interest of 

producers and consumers.
195

319 Mar 30, 2010 5:03 PM I think some food animals live in terrible conditions, laying 

hens for example, I don't believe the general public is 

educated properly about animal welfare issues to make 

informed decisions. My example is farrowing crates, 

outlawing farrowing crates is good for sows but not for 

newborn piglets. Farrowing crates should only be used for 

a short time and while uncomfortable for the sow, they are 

life saving for piglets. Consumers should have a choice 

about how their food is raised and the market will help 

dictate production. Production standards should be set by 

producers, farm agency groups and scientists working in 

behavior and animal welfare. If a practice is deemed 

inhumane, research should be conducted to find a solution 

between production costs and treatment of animals. For 

example, veal calves do not need to be kept in the dark in 

tiny pens to raise quality veal.

320 Mar 30, 2010 8:51 PM Unfortunately, the general public is not educated on the 

good production practices, they are only made aware of 

the problems in production agriculture. There are penalties 

for abuse, and producers, breeders, etc. make the most 

money when they treat their animals with care. I wish the 

general public knew and realized this, and were TOLD this 

by media sources.

321 Mar 31, 2010 9:33 PM The general populous is highly disconnected with the 

business risk, general animal care provided, and actual 

cost/return associated in food animal production. The U.S. 

consumer has false expectations of proper animal care 

and elevated costs associated with "natural" production 

methods. The government and consumer had better 

realize they are walking a tight rope between imposing 

"acceptable" standards and the exit of livestock producers 

in the U.S. Realistically, the consumer won't care if milk 

comes from New Zealand, lamb from Australia, beef from 

Brazil, etc. But they sure want to see the cows in the 

meadow.

322 Apr 1, 2010 9:32 PM Ballot initiatives and regulations allow for people who are 

unrelated to and uneducated regarding food animal 

agriculture to set the rules by which food animal producers 

must live. Unfortunately, these regulations are often NOT 

in the best interest of the producer OR THE ANIMALS. 

People closely related to food animal agriculture with a 

broad understanding of the industry should (AND DO) work 

together to formulate guidelines for producers to follow.

323 Apr 2, 2010 2:21 AM The NAIS is a way for government to obtain a data base 

whereby we get closer to a communist way of producing 

food. It does nothing to improve animal welfare and
196

nothing to keep our food healthy and safe. It only gives the 

government a way to confiscate animals without cause. 

There is nothing in NAIS that addresses prevention. It is 

only about laying blame even when they are wrong. It is 

just like closing the gate AFTER the pigs are out on the 

road. If the gate was closed prior to the pigs getting out 

they would still be in their pen.

324 Apr 2, 2010 2:35 PM Individuals that do not care for their animals are not 

farmers. Farmers go out of business because they cannot 

compete with these individuals, and the farmers that are 

left are put out of business by more regulation. Simply 

enforcing the rules that are in place would be fine however 

that is not being done. Applying more rules with no 

enforcement does not help anyone or anything.

325 Apr 2, 2010 11:43 PM Scary to think that the general public who may not have 

any idea about how to farm or ranch could have the power 

to put ranchers/farmers out of business with a vote that is 

based on mis-information, emotional advertising by animal 

rights groups, and is not based on sound scientific 

evidence. This US citizen and third generation rancher is 

worried about where this nation is headed and if there will 

be any agriculture production opportunities for the next 

generations to provide the safe, wholesome, nutritious 

products that the United States consumers and world 

customers are accustomed to.

326 Apr 3, 2010 11:03 AM Someone is going to have to be in a position to regulate 

animal welfare issues. It should be based on science and 

fact.

327 Apr 4, 2010 12:22 AM Consumers need to understand there is a reason for the 

way things are done on the farm for the safety of farmers 

and animals. There are times things go wrong and things 

look bad, but we always try and be the best stewards of 

the land and animals that we possibly can.

328 Apr 6, 2010 2:01 AM Regulations, that curb the CAFO mind set and promote 

small diversified farming, are the only way to address the 

current unacceptable, non-sustainable food animal 

practices. Regulations are needed to trim the agri-giants' 

monopoly and assure the recovery of small farm soils and 

the survival and resurrection of small, local meat 

producers, through more federally supported local USDAinspected meat processing and regional food distribution 

infrastructure.

329 Apr 8, 2010 3:54 PM I am not in favor of a ballot initiative. We should be 

concentrating more on making the food supply affordable 

and safe for the consumer and less on animal rights.
197

330 Apr 8, 2010 5:54 PM It is necessary to treat food animals humanely. What a city 

person thinks is humane and what actually is humane are 

not necessarily the same.

331 Apr 10, 2010 3:29 AM The profit margin for the small operation farmer is not 

huge. When different restrictions are added on, 

requirements that add cost to production, it gets to a 

tipping point of no longer being worth the effort. People 

who are interested in sustainable farming- vs. the factory 

farms- are dropping out because of this. The huge 

operations are not impacted and will take over the industry 

to the detriment of humane, natural animal care. All of 

which gets transmitted to the meat, milk and other products 

offered to the public.

332 Apr 10, 2010 7:29 AM Better regulations and treatment of food animals is an 

absolute must! God created these most beautiful and 

innocent creatures as well as us and we must recognize 

and respect them as such. The provide us with 

sustenance, the least we could do is treat them humanely 

and with kindness.

333 Apr 10, 2010 3:31 PM Need to educate consumers about the dangers of 

industrial agriculture, chemicals, drugs, feedlots, free stall 

barns, etc. Need bans on large manure lagoons and the 

odors generated. Need more grass based farms and 

compost barns. More on-farm sales of meat, milk, produce 

and fruit.

334 Apr 10, 2010 6:12 PM All initiatives should be discussed with animal oriented 

groups (producers, veterinarians, animal health 

professionals, extension, etc) BEFORE they become 

initiatives.

335 Apr 13, 2010 3:51 PM The care of livestock animals should not revolve around 

the bottom line. Animals are not machines and there must 

be some consideration for the fact that they are sentient 

beings.

336 Apr 18, 2010 2:44 AM I am all for the humane treatment of our farm livestock, 

however, the proposals that have been made, in the name 

of "food safety" and "animal rights", largely puts a 

disproportionate burden of cost of regulation on the small 

farmer/producer. The irony of it is that most small 

producers take much better care of their stock and produce 

a much healthier product than the "agroindustrial" 

producers (I refuse to call these "farms") with less negative 

environmental impact. IMHO it is the massive 
198

"agroindustrial" producers alone that need to be heavily 

monitored. Unfortunately, there is such a disconnect 

between the modern consumer (voters), our "law makers" 

and farmers (large of small). Most voters only see the 

sensational stories that the media puts out about farm 

animal welfare and food safety, giving the voters a very 

slanted view of how their food is grown, making most 

voters confused and not seeing the differences between 

"agroindustrial" producers and small/moderate farms. The 

"law makers" are, in turn, influenced by the monetary 

power of "agroindustry", ignoring the impact on small 

producers, making decisions that are biased and shaped 

to appeal to the voting public. So far, the proposed 

regulations, drafted by "law makers" and supported by 

voters, end up being "knee-jerk" regulations that create 

hardships for small farmers while doing little to change or 

improve conditions for "agroindustrial" livestock.

337 Apr 20, 2010 3:27 PM Future of agriculture needs to be in the hands of farm 

organization groups and legislatures. Mandates and 

regulations need only to be applied from state and federal 

regulations. Currently there are more and more people 

removed and being removed from the farm. We should 

therefore provide food/agriculture awareness classes in 

our general education requirements for institutions of 

higher learning. This would eventually help with the 

consumerÆs perspective and bring light to where their 

food comes from, and why we practice certain practices in 

agriculture. We should also be educating (such as through 

extension programs) the grocery buyer of family 

households. They are the person that is playing the most 

important role of influencing our future consumers.

338 May 3, 2010 12:27 AM Most ballot initiatives are by those who are determined to 

eliminate animal agriculture in this country (vegans). If 

they do not wish to eat animal products that is their choice, 

but do not try to force everyone to that lifestyle by enacting 

phony (animal welfare) regulations. I do not condone 

animal abuse in any way shape or form, but I do believe 

those involved in animal production know far more as to 

how animals should be cared for. Those who do not care 

for their animals properly will not remain in production 

long!!

339 May 4, 2010 9:05 PM Ballot initiatives and regulations hamper creativity and 

progress. Allow the free market to work and reward those 

producers and processors to meet the needs of customers 

and consumers.
199

340 May 5, 2010 1:08 PM Ballot initiatives do not usually work well. Education is 

better for informed choices.

341 May 5, 2010 1:59 PM Ballot initiatives offer an opportunity to educate the general 

population regarding issues concerning food production 

and animal welfare. The difficulty that arises is that there 

are few "credible, unbiased" information sources engaged 

in voter education. The resources available to voter 

education pales in comparison to the expenditure of 

position promotion funding (advocacy) on all sides of an 

issue. Some Land Grant Universities engage in such policy 

education, but it is not something that is done universally 

or consistently.

342 May 5, 2010 3:32 PM We live in a society built on the representative government 

system. To turn important, complex questions over to the 

electorate is irresponsible. It is one thing to ask the 

electorate if they want to allow people to purchase lottery 

tickets. It is quite different to ask them to weigh in on the 

nuances of food animal husbandry and welfare 

implications. Regardless of the irrationality of these ballot 

initiatives, agricultural experts must set aside differences 

and cooperate in educating the voters so that the best, 

logical outcome is reached.

343 May 5, 2010 3:43 PM The public needs to understand the consequences to 

them, the environment, the community, and the animals 

when specific ballot measures are initiated without concern 

for the scientific evidence that may not support measures 

listed in the initiative. The effects are often not thought of 

by the general population. Individuals who have the goal of 

eliminating animal agriculture totally, understand that these 

initiatives will make it harder for the general population to 

have a safe, affordable source of the world's safest food; 

which is their ultimate goal - cessation of animal agriculture 

in the U.S.

344 May 5, 2010 3:53 PM I am most concerned about regulations being implemented 

by animal rights activists and the general public instead of 

objective science-based information. We need to get the 

scientific community more involved.

345 May 5, 2010 3:58 PM In my view, state ballot initiatives that seek to establish 

regulations regarding the welfare of food animals are by 

and large an unwelcome intrusion into commercial animal 

agriculture by animal activists. The groups behind such 

initiatives DO NOT have the interests of agriculture in 

mind, in that their stated goal is to virtually eliminate 

commercial production of animals for food. Because they 

know that American consumers would resist overnight 
200

increases in the cost of food, the activists have developed 

a long-term goal of slow strangulation of the industry by 

advocating increasingly onerous regulations, state by state 

by state. If the industry underestimates these activists, it 

will be at its own peril.

346 May 5, 2010 4:00 PM It is my experience that when more pressure is added to 

farmers while decreasing their available funds (profit) and 

amount of product that the quality of life and product 

decrease. Too much pressure on farmers without help will 

not improve welfare or the farming industry. However, 

increasing the prices in the grocery store will decrease the 

quantity bought by the consumer. We need to find the 

happy medium.

347 May 5, 2010 4:08 PM In my opinion, ballot initiatives originating from the 

uninformed lay population are typically politically rather 

than scientifically driven, often impractical or costprohibitive, and largely unnecessary. Animal welfare 

programs should be developed by experts in the speciesspecific animal husbandry and health fields and should be 

under the regulatory jurisdiction of the state departments of 

agriculture.

348 May 5, 2010 6:15 PM If there are going to be state ballot initiatives dictating 

housing systems, there needs to be money added to these 

initiatives for grants to farmers helping them meet these 

mandates.

349 May 5, 2010 7:51 PM Ballot initiatives allow non-scientific individuals to dictate 

what is best for animals. Animal agriculture can't compete 

with the pocket books of HSUS which often is the only 

source of information the public is exposed to, especially in 

urban areas. If consumers feel passionate about laying 

hens not being raised in cages, then let them pay more for 

cage-free eggs. Don't make the rest of us pay more based 

on nothing more than a slanderous ad campaign funded by 

people who don't believe we should eat animal products 

(meat, milk, eggs) in general. Animal welfare regulations 

need to be based on sound science not emotions.

350 May 5, 2010 8:45 PM Having the public vote for initiatives that they do not fully 

grasp the consequences of is detrimental to the farmers 

and to the animals. Having a legislative body decide what 

changes need to be made could work if the producers are 

allowed to inform them of how things are in a real world 

situation. Changes that sound like they will benefit animals 

in reality may make people feel better about buying the

products, but in actuality may not improve the livability or 

comfort of the animals being produced. The end result will 
201

be more expense, decreased production and potentially an 

increase in the discomfort of animals so people can feel 

better about eating them.

351 May 5, 2010 8:50 PM I believe that using a ballot initiative is a step in the wrong 

direction. Too many people who are misinformed or totally 

uninformed would likely be voting. Those who are involved 

in the areas of food production, who know what the impact 

on production labor and cost further regulation can many 

times be, many times are too busy to get informed of the 

probable impact of the regulations they would be voting on. 

Basically, the regulations, some of which may need 

updating, are probably already on the books. However, 

they also need good knowledgeable people to enforce 

them. One thing we do not need is a group of uninformed 

do gooders getting involved in making regulations.

352 May 5, 2010 9:48 PM Ballot initiatives are inappropriate because they put the 

power of the public in effect at the wrong place. The public, 

as consumers, should choose using educated decisions to 

buy products that they think are safer and more animalwelfare friendly. Changes should only be market driven 

and the knowledge spread to the public should come from 

those that are involved in animal agriculture such as 

veterinarians, producers, and animal scientists. Whenever 

the public votes for a ballot initiative they are extremely 

underprepared in knowledge of the subject at hand. If 

someone with no knowledge of the way that food animals 

are produced is posed a question concerning that 

production, how can they honestly know the choice they 

are making? Logically, most people vote YES that animals 

should have more welfare protections thinking it is a good 

thing. However, they do not realize at the time that what 

they are doing will put food production decisions into the 

hands of animal rights activists and politicians while 

ultimately driving the price of their food items up.

353 May 5, 2010 11:56 PM Consumers are constantly misinformed about the 

conditions of livestock facilities based on biased media 

coverage from animal rights organizations. Food animal 

producers DO care about the welfare and health of their 

animals and want what is best for their respective animals. 

The traditional approach to use the latest science based 

production models is still valid, and research currently in 

the works should provide the answers we seek in terms of 

housing and rearing livestock. It is clear the groups posing 

the legislation in regards to food animal agriculture are 

pushing an agenda by their actions to pass legislation first 

in states with little to no animal agriculture. The public is 

misinformed that animals are treated inhumanely and vote 
202

based on emotion instead of based on facts. Many do not 

realize the potentials for increased food costs.

354 May 6, 2010 1:30 PM Ballot initiatives to regulate food animals are nothing more 

than a way to dupe the general population. Truth is never 

at the center of the argument. The corporate advocacy 

groups have more money and resources to spend on this 

than agriculture does and they have become masters at 

this tactic. Agriculture has foolishly allowed the corporate 

advocacy groups to take over these important issues. 

Agriculture needs to pool their resources and overcome 

petty differences and talk with ONE COMMANDING 

VOICE!

355 May 6, 2010 1:44 PM If changes and initiatives cannot absolutely prove they 

improve animal welfare or food safety then they should not 

be allowed to progress especially when funded by out of 

state wealthy animal rights groups whose ultimate goal is 

to eliminate animal agriculture not to improve welfare of 

food safety.

356 May 6, 2010 3:19 PM Ballot initiatives are like most politics i.e. who has the TV 

message that most impacts (emotional) and motivates the 

voter and really has nothing to do with a science-based 

examination of the issue.

357 May 6, 2010 4:08 PM Guidelines and legislation are inevitable but changes need 

to be based on science and real animal welfare, not on 

politics and animal rights organizations. People who have 

no actual experience raising farm animals should not have 

a voice. They have no real basis for making judgments. 

Use available science!

358 May 6, 2010 4:59 PM I don't agree with the limited choices of answers of some 

questions. Decisions are market, legislative, and animal 

management driven based on science and animal care. 

Currently consumers with no knowledge of animal care 

except pets or of management are making decisions based 

on information from groups that have even less information 

than consumers and all want black and white decisions. In 

life there are not black and white decisions. Most decisions 

being forced by consumers are an attempt to create a no 

liability situation. The result will be a limited choice of foods 

and if animal rights groups no animal products. The ballot 

initiative gives ultimate power to those that have no 

knowledge of the consequences of the decision. The 

regulations if only legislative gives power to a group who 

know not much more and are willing to vote the decision 

based on the consumers demands. In either case farming 

in the US is the only original product marketed to other 
203

countries that reduces the balance of trade today and 

provides jobs in the US and those jobs are getting less. 

With less farm products will be less trade and less reason 

for jobs in all industries and less finances for supporting 

the high outgo of capital to other countries.

359 May 6, 2010 5:07 PM Ballot initiatives on a state by state basis and not all 

language being the same create unfair production 

practices and cost of production.

360 May 6, 2010 5:31 PM There is an important issue out there that needs 

addressing as we go forward. It is unfortunate when 

production systems collapse because of ill-planned and 

poorly thought out solutions. It is hoped that scientific 

research which includes human and sociological factors 

will be funded to help avoid major mis-steps.

361 May 6, 2010 6:01 PM These generally are poor ideas devised by animal rights 

groups to slowly push animal agriculture out of business. 

Ultimately, they don't care how animals are raised for 

human consumption, because they don't want them raised 

as food at all. The goal is to slowly wean people off meat 

by making animal products more and more expensive to 

purchase. That is what these non-science, purely emotion 

based initiatives would accomplish.

362 May 6, 2010 6:09 PM Regulation is only needed because people won't use 

common sense. If it's bad for the animal, it is bad for the 

producer. Regulation has forced the animal industry out of 

Ohio. It started with our Worker's Compensation rates, 

once the highest in the nation and the packing houses all 

moved west. So did the livestock. There is not enough 

livestock left in most counties of Ohio to worry about. I 

would like to be a larger hog farmer but it is about 

impossible.

363 May 6, 2010 7:01 PM "What are the unintended consequences of current and 

proposed animal welfare ballot initiatives on the structure 

of agriculture?" The list of choices includes a decrease in 

the number of producers. I do not believe that this is an 

unintended consequence but rather an intended 

consequence. HSUS is trying to eliminate animal 

agriculture and they are doing it one step at a time. The 

more producers they can eliminate from the ranks means 

the fewer they have to fight for the next battle. We need to 

be fully aware of their agenda.

364 May 6, 2010 7:26 PM I don't believe that the constitutional amendments are the 

appropriate venue for animal welfare legislation and many 

other issues.
204

365 May 6, 2010 7:40 PM It fabricates false information to the majority of body that 

has never experienced farm life. That large corporate 

farmers can consume the changes to laws to keep on 

producing and they are the farms that do not have the time 

and it creates welfare issues. They like kalmbach swine 

even get around permitted facilities laws having more than 

2500 sows at their facilities. They should be permitted but 

are not.

366 May 6, 2010 10:10 PM I have spent 36 years associated with development of 

better designs of livestock buildings and providing 

education information to farmers and the public on good 

operation and management to provide a better 

environment for the animals. The current focus of most 

groups pushing ballot initiatives is not animal welfare but 

making money for the organizers and people working for 

them.

367 May 7, 2010 1:25 AM These ballot initiatives and regulations that are in favor of 

the farmer, are better than having no legislative protection 

at all for our livestock and crop operations. The animal 

welfare groups we as farmers are battling today have 

much money and lee way to make their plans or bogus 

ideas a reality. This is why we as producers need to 

continue to go straight to our legislatures and prevent their 

vegan ideas from becoming a reality and we need to 

continue to educate our consumers on what WE really do 

and teach them what groups such as HSUS are really 

about.

368 May 7, 2010 2:42 AM Due to the lack of knowledge about modern agriculture by 

the general public, many unintended negative 

consequences can occur. The public can be manipulated 

to believe falsehoods about agriculture as we have seen in 

previous elections. People have good intentions when 

voting, but when you use emotion in this or any decision 

the results usually do more harm than good.

369 May 7, 2010 11:53 AM Unintended consequences of regulations will cause less 

food produced in the US and more, less regulated food 

imported resulting in a less secure food supply and fewer 

jobs.

370 May 7, 2010 12:32 PM Regulations are most easily handled by large farms that 

have the resources and capital available to comply with the 

regulations. A great example is the dairy industry which 

has been the most regulated since milk inspection began 

in the mid-1900's. We have seen a slow, but steady 

decline in the number of small dairy operations and an 
205

increase in the number of large dairy operations. Further 

regulations of the dairy industry will result in even more 

small dairies going out of business. Regulations will also 

have the same result in the other livestock operations. This 

not only affects the individual farmer, but the 

agribusinesses that serve the area and the rest of the rural 

community. Just count how many rural communities can 

still consider themselves a dairy area compared with just 

20 or 30 years ago. The regulations doesn't immediately 

put them out of the business; but in retrospect the advent 

of milk inspections is when the dairies began to get larger 

and the small farmer simply got out of the dairy business.

371 May 7, 2010 12:41 PM If we continue to allow the voter to decide (based on 

emotion rather than fact) the direction of regulatory action 

against animal agriculture, we could see the decline of 

animal production as it stands today to a point we will have 

to rely on other countries to provide our food sources and 

in turn have no control on price, safety or quality as well as 

animal welfare issues.

372 May 7, 2010 12:56 PM Ballot initiatives serve special interest groups alone and 

are solely driven by emotion rather than science. The 

agricultural industry in the United States feeds not only our 

domestic population but also the rest of the world. Special 

interest groups like HSUS are solely interested in the 

eradication of animal agriculture in favor of their veganistic 

choice. Their well funded machine allows them to promote 

and force their life choice on others via emotional 

propaganda without any true science. Furthermore, when 

our agricultural producer population is less than 2% of our 

total population how fair is it to allow emotional 

propaganda from any special interest group to determine 

the fate of our food choices and food production systems?

373 May 7, 2010 1:08 PM I feel that a ballot initiative becomes a popularity contest 

not a decision based on sound science. We are at a point 

that the level of knowledge of the non-farm sector on how 

their food is produced is at an all time low. If we mandate 

changes based on perceived information we will just 

strengthen the position of the larger operators due to their 

economies of scale. Let's first put education back into our 

schools to show people how our food is actually produced. 

We have taken too big of a step away from life skills 

education in the past 30 years and at the same time we 

have gone through rapid vertical integration in our animal 

production units in the name of cheaper food. Our food is 

safer than anywhere in the world. People live longer and 

are better fed. However our eating habits have taken a 

nose dive and we need to correct that also with a sound 
206

education policy put back into our schools. The answer lies 

not in legislation but in education.

374 May 7, 2010 1:17 PM I have been a Pork producer for over 30 years. I grouped 

sows together for many years. The boss sows bullied the 

timid sows. Timid sows do not get to eat as much as they 

would like, this is not humane. I now use gestation crates, 

and sows are much better off. It is disappointing those not 

involved in animal agriculture think they know what is the 

most humane way to raise livestock.

375 May 7, 2010 2:20 PM Ballot initiatives etc. are not the correct avenue for seeking 

changes in the animal agriculture industry. Most voters are 

ignorant of many farm industry practices and the rationale 

for their adoption. There is much false information and 

misrepresentation on behalf of the animal rights 

organizations designed to mislead consumers and voters. 

The ultimate goal being conversion of all to vegetarianism.

376 May 7, 2010 3:22 PM Regulations used to improve the livestock industry are 

needed however they must be partially controlled by those 

who know the industry. The general public is so far 

removed from livestock production in our country that their 

knowledge of proper animal care and production is more 

emotional than factual. The board set up in Ohio to 

produce guidelines for animal production is necessary, 

however it seems to be made up of a few more university 

and extension personnel than livestock producers. Even 

though they have the education behind them, their day-today hands on experience is not current or in some cases 

practical. Perhaps a better blend of producers would be 

beneficial.

377 May 7, 2010 3:59 PM Critical thought must be given to this; be careful what you 

wish for, you may get it.

378 May 7, 2010 5:02 PM Ballot initiatives are often controllable by zealots with 

money. This could be a large corporation or group, but it 

certainly isn't a small farmer or small farm organization.

379 May 7, 2010 5:46 PM It seems very hard to believe that an anti farming/animal 

use organization, such as HSUS, should be able to even 

propose any ballot initiative or regulation when their 

ultimate agenda is to do away with agriculture.

380 May 7, 2010 6:07 PM We have the safest food supply in the world. Let's not 

"regulate" animal agriculture to a point where the price of 

production causes consumer prices to raise above the 

purchasing power of lower income people in the USA. I do 

not mean we should sacrifice any USDA standards below 
207

today's scale. In fact there are some areas that standards 

should be initiated or made stronger.

381 May 7, 2010 6:22 PM I think this survey makes the false assumption that all 

animal welfare ballot initiatives are created equal. The 

initiative in Ohio was to create a board to determine 

livestock care standards instead of having regulations 

forced by an outside organization (even though that 

organization is trying to revoke the board's privileges 

before they get started). Bottom line is any ballot initiative 

that PASSES will lead to regulation of some kind, but the 

extent of that regulation varies and therefore, has a varied 

effect. Regulations in my opinion directly affect large 

operations the hardest first, but once adjustments are 

made to infrastructure they are back in business. Most 

small farms have less of an issue with confinement which 

seems to be the first component attacked in regards to 

welfare.

382 May 7, 2010 6:23 PM Not all ballot initiatives are created equal. Through a ballot 

initiative in 2009, Ohio created a Livestock Care Standards 

Board that defines a process to address issues related to 

livestock care in the State. On the other hand, Ohioans for 

Humane Farms (HSUS) is working on a ballot initiative to 

ban gestation stalls for sows, veal stalls, and cages for 

laying chickens, along with regulating on-farm euthanasia 

practices and prohibiting the transport, sale or receipt of 

downer cattle. Prohibition without a viable alternative can 

create unintended consequences, including additional 

welfare issues. Focusing on animal behavior as the sole 

indicator of animal welfare fails to take into account the 

complexity of agriculture and the importance of other 

factors such as food safety, food availability, and food 

affordability. Food policy decisions should be made by 

experts and should be based on science and fact, not 

emotions.

383 May 7, 2010 6:43 PM If we lose cages for laying hens, the egg quality and 

quantity will suffer dramatically. Ohio is now the #2 egg 

producer and will fast go to at least 20th. If you have never 

raised hogs you cannot appreciate the safety for the sows 

and safety and convenience for the caretakers when the 

sows are in gestation and farrowing crates.

384 May 7, 2010 7:07 PM It is a terrible way to dictate production practices.

385 May 7, 2010 7:46 PM I am very concerned about negative consequences when 

the uninformed public determines management practices 

for livestock operations. The people closely associated 

with food animal agriculture are best suited to determine 
208

which management practices work best in each individual 

farm or system and to implement them appropriately. I am 

proud to be a food animal veterinarian and I am proud of 

the way our producers care for their animals. Because 

American farmers treat their animals humanely, they are 

able to provide a safe and plentiful food supply for people 

around the world.

386 May 7, 2010 9:31 PM On the positive side - adopt the Ohio way of dealing with 

HSUS and the like. We must get ag related issues away 

from people that think milk comes from the grocery store.

387 May 9, 2010 3:03 PM We all need to step back, and take the common sense 

approach.

388 May 9, 2010 5:31 PM Wrong approach. Voters do not realize unattended effects

389 May 10, 2010 12:52 PM Consumers need to understand that every industry or 

group has a bad apple or two but that doesn't mean we 

have to dump the whole apple cart to get rid of the few bad 

apples. The industry needs to stand up for itself and 

strongly punish those that are not providing the excellent 

care that is the norm. Unfortunately many of these bad 

behavior documentations have been sensationalized to 

make it appear as if it is common place....it's not.

390 May 10, 2010 2:42 PM Costs of additional regulations and initiatives are not being 

offset by consumers paying for them in the market place. 

Cost is driving most/all of consumer purchases.

391 May 10, 2010 2:52 PM We must be proactive and take part in the development of 

these initiatives and regulations. We must take an active 

part so that they will not be created and developed by 

those without an appreciation for our professions.

392 May 10, 2010 3:05 PM The problem with most ballot initiatives, and especially this 

topic, is that voters are motivated by emotion rather than 

clear reasoning. Consumers have always driven the 

market and it has historically proven to be a very adequate 

method of making producers meet those demands. We 

seem so concerned about protecting minority rights in this 

country lately, why should we eliminate choice from some 

segment of the consuming public just because they might 

happen to be in the minority in one certain election?

393 May 10, 2010 3:20 PM Ballot issues increase costs in the area or state where the 

issue passes. Processors and some farms move to 

neighboring states without ballot issues.
209

394 May 10, 2010 3:32 PM The animal rights organizations (HSUS, PETA, etc.) have 

more money, time, and anti agricultural agendas than the 

farmers that are raising and producing our nation's food. 

We need to be sensible and follow the WELFARE 

guidelines set by professionals that KNOW animal 

welfare...e.g. AVMA, AAEP, Animal Behaviorists such as 

Temple Grandin, etc. rather than let those that feel animals 

should never be used for food/fiber/competition dictate and 

impart their RIGHTS agenda on farmers and to the public 

that don't know any different. Unfortunately, the public has 

been exposed to falsehoods and propaganda by heavily 

funded RIGHTS organizations and they are very far 

removed from actual ag animal and food production.

395 May 10, 2010 4:19 PM Only do ballot initiatives that make it easier to farm -

perhaps a farmer's bill of rights or a right to farm 

amendment.

396 May 10, 2010 6:41 PM Several questions are difficult to interpret. Not a very well 

constructed questionnaire.

397 May 10, 2010 7:00 PM Ballot initiatives are an inappropriate approach to develop 

food animal regulations. The public is not well-informed 

about current technology, livestock care and husbandry 

and cannot be expected to make sound decisions which 

impact food animal production.

398 May 10, 2010 7:09 PM I worry about the role of advertising/marketing in ballot 

initiatives.

399 May 10, 2010 8:07 PM Ballot initiatives will have a negative impact on food animal 

agriculture. They allow for a well funded HSUS to dominate 

public policy in a way that will be detrimental for the 

consumer.

400 May 10, 2010 8:54 PM Ballot initiatives nor regulations are an effective means to 

create a positive change in animal agriculture.

401 May 11, 2010 3:15 AM Ballot initiatives should not be used to impose regulations. 

Such initiatives or constitutional amendments result in 

regulations that are one-sided and not well vetted. 

Campaigns for such initiatives result in sensationalism 

which tugs at heart strings but is not necessarily 

representative of most real world care. The process 

underway in Ohio utilizing a Livestock Care Standards 

Board is a thoughtful, inclusive and rational method to 

develop comprehensive standards for animal care.

402 May 11, 2010 12:13 PM Large and small producers realize that for animals to be 

productive, they must have a good environment and be 
210

comfortable. Animal welfare advocates play upon the 

concern of citizens who do not know agriculture, which is 

most of America.

403 May 11, 2010 2:03 PM Food production needs to double by 2050. Good animal 

care is essential to produce more high quality protein. 

Producing animal protein so it is affordable and nutritious, 

must be balanced with the proper care. The animal rights 

groups continue to play on public emotion to carry out their 

agenda of eliminating all animals from man, while not 

caring about the malnourished and starving people of the 

world. Thanks.

404 May 11, 2010 2:18 PM I don't think that I have enough knowledge about the entire 

situation to make an intelligent response. I do know that I 

do not eat the cattle we raise because they seem like pets. 

When I eat a steak from the store, there is no sentiment. 

Slaughter of any animal makes me sad, but animals and 

grain have been a means of income in my family for many 

years. For an animal to give its life to nurture mankind is a 

supreme sacrifice. I don't think the world is ready to 

become vegan at this date. Thank you.

405 May 11, 2010 4:03 PM While the perspective and perceptions of those outside 

agricultural production are important to understand, I do 

not believe these groups should be those making 

decisions relative to the business or related animal welfare. 

To the extent that their buying decisions influence market 

demand, they do have a voice, but that is where it should 

end relative to policy. That said, it is important for those 

making decisions within their own ag industry to listen well 

to the comments and concerns of a buying (or non-buying) 

public to adjust and be prepared for the PR backlash of 

those who disagree with methods or policies. To the extent 

that they can influence greater demand by shifting the 

sentiment of the massive consuming market, they are a 

force to be reckoned with.

406 May 11, 2010 4:03 PM Unfortunately the groups that are bringing these initiatives 

forward are not truly as concerned about the welfare of the 

animal as they are about moving their vegan agenda 

forward by regulating animal agriculture out of the U.S. 

They say they are only concerned about the "basic care" of 

the animal. This is what animal caretakers have been 

doing since the beginning of time. What they are asking for 

are extreme measures with no regard to the unintended 

consequences. Producers in the U.S. are currently 

providing consumers with all the options they are asking 

for. If they are willing to pay for those options that's great, 
211

but my choices shouldn't be limited because their view is 

different than mine.

407 May 11, 2010 4:06 PM 97% of the population knows little or nothing about 

farming. A vote made from bad information could have a 

very negative effect on our future food supply. Ballots and 

regulations should be made on facts not emotions.

408 May 11, 2010 4:29 PM I think the initiative route is very dangerous as the public 

does not necessarily have the information to make 

knowledgeable decisions that will have unintended 

consequences. The industries must be willing to commit to 

using best practices as they are identified through scientific 

research. The agricultural community must commit to 

educating the public about where their food comes from. 

We must protect American agriculture or the food supply in 

this country will become expensive and scarce. We do not 

want to depend on outside nations to produce our food. 

This is an economic, national security and health concern.

409 May 11, 2010 5:13 PM More regulation = More regulation More regulation = more 

opportunity for corruption Who has the power to regulate? 

How did they get the power? I don't believe that regulation 

= public protection anymore. Regulation is an opportunity 

to add cost to production and extort money from the 

producers. The only way for producers to protect 

themselves from regulations is to control the markets in 

order to be able to cover their costs of production. The 

small producers cannot do this therefore we have very few 

small producers anymore. Regulations = Mega farms. I am 

finding it more difficult to classify a Mega farm as 

agriculture. It is an animal factory; not run by a farmer but 

by a board of directors.

410 May 12, 2010 1:21 PM The public needs to understand that our food is ALREADY 

the safest in the world and we do treat animals humanely. 

The public needs to understand that animal rights groups 

are only wanting to do away with animals used for meat 

purposes and transform more people into vegans. The 

supposed concern for animals is a decoy to their true 

goals. Animal welfare groups already are in place along 

with commodity groups and the universities to ensure safe, 

wholesome food production from farm to plate. There is 

always room for improvement, but it must be research 

based and be financially sound for producers to use - not a 

scare tactic decision made by uninformed voters. The 

public voting on these matters is like me voting on hospital 

regulations i.e. how treatment is given, how many people 

are to be placed in beds in one room, what can/cannot be 

served for meals, etc. I simply do not have the knowledge 
212

to make those decisions and therefore rely on those in the 

profession. The public needs to stop being frightened into 

not trusting the professionals in the animal production 

world.

411 May 12, 2010 4:30 PM Food safety programs are more than adequate. Price and 

demand will take care of animal welfare, for the better!

412 May 12, 2010 4:52 PM Most voters are uninformed of the issues and are swayed 

by the advertisements. The ballot box is not the place to 

make laws, rules or regulations. The ballot box is the place 

to determine the direction and framework for the elected 

officials to make laws.

413 May 12, 2010 5:28 PM The livestock industry must take necessary actions to 

upgrade their quality of production and methods of 

production with input from the consumer. Production 

techniques have developed because of demand for 

product at a reasonable price. I do believe there is a 

growing audience that cares where and how their food is 

produced and will pay more knowing that the food they are 

eating is coming from a family farm, raised in a humane 

method, by people that take good care of their animals, 

good conservationist, and take pride in handing the farm to 

the next generation in better shape. Grass-based beef 

producer.

414 May 12, 2010 5:28 PM People who have no idea how their food ends up on their 

plate should not be telling farmers how to do their job.

415 May 12, 2010 5:29 PM I have been a veterinarian for 35 years and a small farmer 

for just as long. The ballot initiatives are a direct result of 

lack of improvement in food animal agriculture and 

handling by the industry itself. The argument has always 

been economic. That has been disproved by the increase 

in consumer pricing of all food animal agriculture products, 

almost all of which is going to the retailer. The handling of 

the animals should be better, regardless of the cost.

416 May 12, 2010 5:38 PM I think that ballot initiatives in this form were unintended for 

Constitutional changes.

417 May 12, 2010 6:16 PM Neither the legislature, nor the general public knows or 

understands what it takes to produce good, cheap food. 

Yes, there are cases that animals are mistreated, but most 

farmers love their animals, and furthermore animals that 

are mistreated are not profitable to the farmer. There is 

legislation that prohibits child abuse, and there is still 

unreported and unpunished child abuse. Look at the horse 

industry. What can be more abusive than disowning horses 
213

because people cannot feed them, instead of using them 

for food?

418 May 12, 2010 6:52 PM Just is more Gov. in our lives. No longer the free nation we 

were, more socialism and costs.

419 May 12, 2010 9:32 PM I believe it was prop 2 that was voted in, in California that 

is going to force most egg producers to leave the state. 

The tactics they used to pass the bill were downright 

wrong. They showed the packing house with the downed 

dairy cow (had nothing to do with the prop.) They showed 

egg farms that had to be illegal, there are several egg 

ranches in my community, they do not resemble the one in 

the Adv. at all. They play on the uninformed’s emotions 

without playing fair but that is their MO after all.

420 May 12, 2010 10:47 PM Imperative that we keep HSUS out of animal agriculture as 

they are trying to regulate us out of business. Thank 

goodness Ohio had the wherewithal to come up with the 

standards board. We must educate the non-agriculture 

community (billboards, local media outlets, print media, 

and web-based information) about ourselves as no one 

else is going to do it. The misconceptions about producers 

(farmers) are appalling and it is due to lack of information 

to the general public. HSUS spends thousands spreading 

their muck on television. Why don't we? Good luck with 

your survey. I will look forward to viewing the results. 

Signed B and D.

421 May 12, 2010 10:50 PM I believe it to be a sad state of affairs when DC advocates 

try to snowball the public in to their vegan beliefs and hide 

behind their names. Science based info is more valuable 

than emotions when it comes to your food. This is still 

America and if people want to live a vegan life that is their 

choice but they have no right to force their vegan ways on 

everyone else.

422 May 13, 2010 12:18 AM Such a large percentage of the (voting) population not only 

is not involved in production agriculture, but has little to no 

understanding of it, so they really shouldn't be the ones 

making these decisions. Food animal agriculture is in this 

way not unlike things like taxes or defense or space 

exploration that the government wouldn't think of allowing 

the voting public to direct.

423 May 13, 2010 1:47 AM Question #2 did not (by my read) provide for a group of 

people designated by the governor (or director of ag) to 

determine welfare standards which I think may be more 

appropriate
214

424 May 13, 2010 1:51 AM Market conditions should be the deciding factor. 

Consumers have a choice if they want cheap or high 

quality food now. Stupid is as stupid does. Why is that 

government's responsibility to fix? It is none of the 

government's business how I raise livestock. The 

regulations can determine who wins and that by who picks 

the regulators. Maybe we should regulate the petitioner's 

lifestyle? IF you want cheap eggs from chickens in a cage 

or good free range chicken eggs why is that any of the 

government's business? Buy local and all this stuff goes 

away. You will know what you get.

425 May 13, 2010 10:30 AM Must be careful not to make to restrictive or too vague or 

too full of mandates which can be full of loopholes any 

organization can manipulate to their advantage.

426 May 13, 2010 12:06 PM Advice to voters, Understand what you are voting for or 

against. Be careful what you ask for-you may get it.

427 May 13, 2010 12:15 PM Stop the creation of "Livestock Welfare Boards" that are 

voted into law to simply increase the stronghold of the 

factory farms and grain/livestock lobbying groups like Farm 

Bureau and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. They 

get the board positions filled with their own lobbyists 

instead of independent citizens. Animal welfare needs to 

be improved but not by having the decisions made by 

lobbyists or large agribusiness corporations who care more 

about keeping themselves in power, rather than actually 

doing something.

428 May 13, 2010 8:21 PM Voters are not intelligent enough to make decisions on 

animal welfare and look at the emotional side without 

realizing unintended economic ramifications. For this 

reason change in food animal agriculture should be 

dictated by consumer decisions in the market place and 

not mandated.

429 May 13, 2010 10:13 PM The producers know what is going on and should be very 

capable of providing safe and wholesome product with 

education. The ballot results in too many uninformed and 

emotional responses.

430 May 14, 2010 1:29 PM 1) HSUS and California left wing liberals should stay in 

California and out of Midwestern agriculture. Too often the 

vocal minority tries to control the silent majority most of 

whom aren't to blame. 2) The federal govt (bureaucracy) 

should leave it to individual states. 3) One or two badapple factory farms blow it for the thousands of 

conscientious and ethical producers and processors who 

strive to deliver a safe wholesome product at a fair price. 4) 
215

The market should lead this reform and let the consumer 

decide with his/her food dollar.

431 May 14, 2010 3:14 PM It is interesting that the clear implication from the possible 

responses available to questions about impact of animal 

welfare initiatives (#5, 6, 7, and 9) is that, in the opinion of 

the survey creator anyway, the impacts are all negative. 

You do not allow for a positive response, but when I 

answered "change in quality" to the question (#9) about 

"unintended consequences”, I in fact meant that the 

changes in quality would be for the BETTER.

432 May 15, 2010 5:26 PM Agriculture, especially food animal production, does not 

need more regulations. The markets and supply and 

demand have made production ag what it is today, and 

that will continue.

433 May 17, 2010 12:38 PM Ballot initiatives are bad as they are usually very broad and 

non specific causing confusion and followed by 

overregulation. They are feel good proposals, but are 

detrimental for production.

434 May 17, 2010 1:27 PM Outside groups such as HSUS need to quit meddling in the 

affairs of state regulatory agencies and policies. Farmers 

as a whole do not abuse the animals that provide a source 

of the farm's income. Any effort to thwart HSUS is a good 

effort.

435 May 17, 2010 3:53 PM Specifically related to pork production, If you "ask" the sow 

if she wants to be in a crate or if she wants to fight with the 

group, we have overwhelming evidence that the sow 

prefers to be protected from other sows - crated during 

gestation. I believe the research should look to the animals 

for answers and not to the people who do not understand 

how or why we raise food animals the way that we do. 

Additionally, there are researchers who specialize in 

animal welfare. They continually look for new ways to 

handle animals - they need funding so they offer unrealistic 

answers when it is obvious that the current system is 

working.

436 May 17, 2010 7:24 PM States that allow the use of ballot initiatives, in general, 

believe that they provide an opportunity for the public atlarge to be more engaged in the political process. I can 

definitely see the merit in that thinking. Ballot initiatives in 

regard to animal agriculture may or may not be harmful to 

the industry and supporting industries depending on the 

premise of the ballot language itself. In general, the risk is 

always present that the outcome of a ballot initiative will be 

decided by a vote of a rather largely uninformed public that 
216

is susceptible to the persuasions of political messaging 

through the use of mass media and new media. This is 

especially problematic with issues highly technical in 

nature in which emotional arguments may carry the day 

that are not necessarily rooted in sound science.

437 May 18, 2010 12:26 PM No one group whether it is HSUS or AFBF should have the 

ability to go into a state or any other government sector 

and be able to make policy and influence laws!!! I do not 

believe that our country is supposed to operate like that 

and it should not!!!

438 May 18, 2010 5:18 PM No hog farming in Florida due to ballot initiative - we 

regulate farming with the state constitution

439 May 18, 2010 5:28 PM Any change in U.S. law should apply to imported products 

as well or all you do is put our producers out of business 

and promote foreign unregulated food animal production. 

Example, there are no labor restrictions on producing 

vegetables in Mexico whereas in the U.S. there are a host 

of labor regulations driving up cost and putting our farms 

out of business while allowing unrestricted access to our 

markets for production in Mexico without minimum wage or 

child labor laws...so it all gets pushed to unregulated areas 

since everything is allowed to be imported without the 

same restrictions we have. We should have fair trade not 

unrestricted access to our markets.

440 May 18, 2010 8:17 PM none

441 May 18, 2010 10:56 PM THE BALLOT BOX INITIATIVE ALLOWS PEOPLE THAT 

ARE NOT EDUCATED IN OR FAMILIAR WITH BEST 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF AGRICULTURAL 

PRODUCTION TO FORCE REGULATIONS AND 

CERTIFICATIONS ON PRODUCERS. REGULATIONS 

SHOULD BE SCIENCE BASED AND RESEARCHED 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT ARE 

ACCEPTED IN AN INDUSTRY. ORGANIC FARMING; 

SMALL COMMUNITY GARDENS; AND TRUCK 

FARMERS DO NOT HAVE THE SUSTAINABILITY TO 

LITERALLY PRODUCE TO FEED THE WORLD 

POPULATION. ONE MAJOR STATE OF OUR NATIONAL 

SECURITY IS BEING ABLE TO EFFICIENTLY FEED 

OUR POPULATION. IN MANY CASES LARGE 

INTEGRATED POULTRY AND SWINE PRODUCERS IN 

RURAL AREAS HAVE SAVED THOSE FARM 

PRODUCERS WHILE ALLOWING LOCAL COUNTY 

GOVERNMENTS THE REVENUES TO SUPPORT 

SCHOOLS, ROADS, ETC.
217

442 May 19, 2010 2:35 PM We shouldn’t allow ballot measures that are outside the 

scope of protecting individual rights. We don't need any 

animal agriculture measures to go before voters. These 

should be handled by elected officials with input from 

interested groups.

443 May 19, 2010 3:27 PM The use of a ballot initiative is detrimental to food animal 

producers in the sense that you are using a voter base 

that, in general, has no firsthand knowledge of the 

practices, or methods utilized in a 21st century animal 

production enterprise. This "voter" base is very easily 

influenced by outside organizations, and can vote, due to 

these biased influences, to place both unfair and 

unrealistic regulations upon the food animal industry.

444 May 19, 2010 5:25 PM I love agriculture, I love my animals and because of a few 

in the industry we have people that don't realize how many 

of us try to do everything in our power to take proper care 

of our animals. Yes we produce them for consumption, 

however we do care for them, they are God's creatures 

and deserve our best.

445 May 19, 2010 7:36 PM This is another dumb idea and whoever is promoting this, 

is clueless about the rule of unintended consequences. 

They also are not interested in food for the hungry or under 

nourished. This is a political power play and ruse using 

food animals. Study the HSUS, or Peta and then tell the 

food consumer with a straight face that there is a legitimate 

concern for animal health and welfare.

446 May 20, 2010 3:31 PM Use of ballot initiatives and regulations to create change in 

food animal agriculture is a gamble. Marketing campaigns

by groups with ballot initiatives can be very strong and 

persuasive depending on the money behind the group. 

The general public needs to be made aware that HSUS is 

not their local humane society and that their 

goals/objectives are much different than the local societies.

447 May 20, 2010 8:28 PM Change must come in food animal ag. There is too much 

waste and overproduction of food animals; too many 

restaurants (e.g. chicken wing places) that are not 

necessary and are created merely for economic reasons at

the expense of raising animals for slaughter. Like our 

consumer mentality with purchasing, we are an unthinking 

society (the majority) expecting to have it all. It is selfish, 

wasteful and a lack of compassion in behavior.

448 May 21, 2010 6:36 PM Animal production practices that are utilized today have 

been developed over the years from farmers and 

veterinarians improving the efficiency, safety and comfort 
218

of the animals. These decisions are best left in the hands 

of people who work with these animals and whose 

livelihood depends on their production. Should we have 

ballot initiatives to tell doctors how to care for patients or 

for auto makers how to build cars when the majority of the 

people voting know very little about these industries?

449 May 21, 2010 6:36 PM Need to be closer to production of animals for food than 

just being a voter.

450 May 21, 2010 6:49 PM Question #9 is rather ambiguous, as it states 

"...unintended consequences..." Why not just state 

"...intended consequences..."?

451 May 21, 2010 7:10 PM The HSUS and PETA are of no help to animals. They just 

stir up trouble to keep donations coming in, so the leaders 

get well paid. There are no controls on non-profits 

including those of the humaniacs. HSUS has 11,000,000 

donors and PETA has 32,000,000. Signed: A

452 May 21, 2010 7:19 PM Based on my observations of our nation’s “general” voting 

public, most are uninformed on issues concerning food 

production and how complex factors may affect the 

nation’s food supply system. Of those voters who have a 

position on the issue of animal welfare, many are 

misinformed basing their opinions on biased propaganda 

that has targeted their emotional psyche. Stereotypes and 

negative stigmas cloud the opinions of consumers who 

equate American animal agriculture producers to Nazi 

dictators. They don’t realize that given current trade 

policies American producers will be quickly replaced by 

foreign competitors who won’t have to play by the same 

rules. Our nation’s food security will be lost and with it so 

will we lose one more piece of our sovereign 

independence.

453 May 21, 2010 8:06 PM Small farms which sell locally should not be required to 

microchip their animals and register their farms.

454 May 21, 2010 8:14 PM Regulations will control the availability of food for the public 

and increase the cost. The public is accustomed to cheap 

food. Only the land owners will be able to produce their 

own food and have good nutrition at a reasonable cost, if 

the unreasonable regulations continue. We need to tell the 

consumer that if they continue to support this type 

regulation, they will someday not be able to afford the food 

they have been accustomed to enjoying.
219

3. A. Ethical Implications of Animal Biotechnology: 

Considerations for Animal Welfare Decision Making

Paul Thompson
Number 46

June 2010

Abstract

Animal biotechnology—which 

includes both genetic engineering and 

mammalian cloning—has expanded rapidly in recent decades. These 

technologies already have been applied in biomedical research and now 

are nearing application within the 

food system. Both the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) and the 

European Food Safety Authority recently have concluded that meat and 

milk from cloned animals are safe, but 

public perceptions will continue to 

have a significant impact on the development and commercialization of animal biotechnology applications.

Public opinion studies regarding animal biotechnology reveal that 

people are concerned about the purpose of the applications, the methods 

of research, and the objects of manipulation. Additional public concerns include the moral status of animals, the 

boundary between what is considered 

“natural” and “unnatural,” and the 

consequences of genetic modification, 

particularly the long-term impacts on 

human health and the environment. 

Three broad categories of ethical issues are associated with animal 

biotechnology: (1) the technology’s 

impact on the animals themselves, (2) 

the institutions and procedures that 

govern the research and applications 

within the agrifood system, and (3) 

the relationships between humans and 

other animals. 

Among the world’s largest religions, there are very few clear-cut 

taboos prohibiting animal biotechnology, although ethical implications 

can be drawn from the general role 

This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) (formerly 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service) Grants No. 2009-38902-20041, No. 2008-38902-19327, and No. 2007-31100-06019/Iowa State 

University (ISU) Project No. 413-40-02, and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Agreement No. 59-0202-7-144. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, 

or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USDA, NIFA, ISU, or ARS.

Animal behavior scientists are working to identify and reduce excessive animal 

stress on the farm to improve health and productivity. (Photo courtesy of the 

USDA Agricultural Research Service.)

Ethical Implications of Animal Biotechnology: 

Considerations for Animal Welfare

Decision Making

Animal Agriculture’s Future through Biotechnology, Part 9
2 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

CAST Issue Paper 46 Task Force Members

Authors

Reviewers

CAST Liaison

Paul B. Thompson (Chair), Department of Philosophy, Michigan State 

University, East Lansing

Fuller W. Bazer, Department of 

Animal Science, Texas A & M 

University, College Station

Edna F. Einsiedel, Communications 

Studies, University of Calgary, 

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

to be commercialized. In contrast, the 

political tradition of the United States 

emphasizes ethical debate within the 

legislative process. Congress has not 

seen fit to provide a clear place for it in 

regulatory decision making.

Two main international protocols affect animal biotechnology: The 

Codex Alimentarius Commission sets 

international safety standards for foods; 

the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 

to the Convention on Biological 

Diversity—primarily an environmental treaty—protects biological diversity 

from risks posed by living modified organisms, taking into account potential 

risks to human health.

There have been relatively few 

formal efforts to bring science, ethics, religious tradition, public opinion, 

and legal practice into dialogue regarding animal biotechnology. Decisions 

about the future development and use 

of animal biotechnology may be more 

effective and widely accepted if parties 

from various disciplines increase their 

commitment to frequent and sustained 

cooperative efforts to analyze the multitude of complex facets of this issue, 

including knowledge of the science of 

animal biotechnology, philosophical 

reflections on the moral significance of 

animals, religious traditions of animal 

use, and research on public attitudes to 

animal biotechnology.

 

Introduction

The last two decades have seen the 

development of new genetic technologies for nonhuman animals (hereafter, 

simply “animals”) that already have 

been applied widely in biomedical research and now are nearing application 

within the food system. Genetic engineering—the manipulation of animal 

genomes using techniques derived from 

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to produce recombinant DNA (rDNA) (artificial DNA engineered through insertion, 

rearrangement, or deletion of one or 

more DNA strands)—has the potential to introduce new traits into familiar animal products. The technologies 

also are envisioned to create nonfood 

uses for traditional livestock species 

that may present challenges for the animal products industry and consumers. 

Mammalian cloning almost certainly 

will be used in connection with genetic 

engineering and may have additional 

uses for livestock breeders who desire 

a means to improve the genetics within 

their herds. These two techniques encompass what is here referred to as 

“animal biotechnology.”

The focus of this paper is to survey 

some key ethical, religious, and legal 

issues associated with animal biotechnology in traditional livestock species. 

Issues relating to biomedical research 

animals are not discussed, although 

some technologies using traditional 

farm animals (i.e., pigs, cows, and 

sheep) are included. On the one hand, 

the word “ethics” is associated with 

highly personal and subjective feelings 

or judgments. For many, ethical principles are grounded in religion or cultural 

tradition and depend on belief systems 

that are viewed as distinct from, or 

even at odds with, those of modern science. On the other hand, many specific 

ethical principles are common to almost all human cultures and traditions. 

Philosophical methods of analysis and 

Margaret Foster Riley, University 

of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville

Jeffrey Burkhardt, Department of 

Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville

Gail C. Golab, Animal Welfare 

Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, Illinois

Carol Keefer, Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University 

of Maryland, College Park

George Seidel, Jr., Department of 

Biomedical Sciences, Colorado 

State University, Fort Collins

A. David Scarfe, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, Illinois

of animals within the religious tradition and from beliefs and practices that 

address animal care and use, animal 

breeding, and human diet. 

In the United States, animal biotechnology is regulated primarily by 

the FDA and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Because U.S. regulators 

do not view biotechnology as being inherently “risky,” regulations generally 

apply only to the products of biotechnology. But this regulatory strategy has 

ethical ramifications. The scope of the 

issues, impacts, and practices deemed 

relevant to decision making reflect a 

norm or evaluative judgment about 

what will and what will not be addressed in the regulatory process. The 

U.S. regulatory discussion does not 

focus on whether cloning, genetic engineering, or other biotechnologies are 

appropriate methods—or even whether 

the resulting products are socially or 

economically valuable or ethically appropriate—but rather on whether the 

products are safe for use.

In contrast, European regulators 

view biotechnology as a novel process 

that requires novel regulatory provisions. This “process-versus-product” 

method means that the technology does 

not go forward and/or importation is 

delayed while the general approach to 

regulatory evaluation is being debated. Even if regulators ultimately make 

decisions similar to those made in the 

United States, the European approach 

provides a forum in which open debate 

can cover the range of issues, impacts, 

and practices that ultimately will be decisive. The European method still provides opportunities for product-specific 

ethical debate when a product is about 
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

debate articulate the bases for crosscultural agreement on many key ethical 

commitments understood to underlie 

a well-ordered society, and all of the 

world’s major religions have endorsed 

the view that ethical dialog can be conducted both within and across theological traditions (Thompson 2007). 

This paper begins with a review of 

animal biotechnology techniques, including some examples of how these 

techniques currently are being used. 

As of this writing, no animal biotechnologies are in widespread or general 

use for agricultural purposes, although 

experimental animals have been produced and reports note a few instances 

in which engineered or cloned animals may have been released, sometimes inadvertently, into the food chain. 

Following that discussion, key ethical 

issues raised in connection with animal 

biotechnology will be outlined, followed by an evaluation of the ways 

some religious traditions have viewed 

animals and speculative comments on 

how these views relate to animal biotechnology. This paper also summarizes 

public opinion research on the ethical 

issues associated with animal biotechnology as well as the current legal and 

regulatory framework for animal biotechnology. The concluding section 

evaluates how these multiple threads 

present both challenges and opportunities for the ethical development of agricultural animal biotechnology.

Animal Biotechnology

Science

General Overview

During the twentieth century, scientists developed a number of techniques for manipulating DNA in cells. 

These techniques originated in research 

intended to understand better the role 

and function of genes in heredity, in the 

control of biological functions, and in 

disease. When combined with methods for regenerating organisms from 

single embryonic or other cells, these 

techniques can be used to create living 

plants and animals that have a specific genetic constitution. Genetic engineering is the alteration of an animal’s 

traits through addition or subtraction of 

genetic constructs that control specific 

biological functions through the use of 

these new techniques for manipulating 

DNA. Cloning uses these techniques 

to create a cell that is a genetic copy of 

another cell. 

For vertebrate animals used conventionally as food sources (e.g., cows, 

pigs, chickens, and fish), the ability to 

engineer embryonic cells genetically 

dates back to the 1980s, but difficulties 

in regenerating live animals from these 

cells have limited the usefulness of this 

process beyond pure research applications. In theory, however, this process could confer an ability to develop 

breeds or varieties of livestock with 

many novel traits. In fact, the theoretical applications of genetic engineering seemingly are bound only by the 

imagination. They include applications 

intended to limit both disease and clinical signs, to create animals that produce 

novel products in their milk or blood, to 

mitigate environmental impacts, and to 

lower the costs of livestock production.

Cloning of livestock embryos 

through a process not unlike that of 

“twinning” that occurs naturally also 

has been possible for several decades. 

But only in 1997 did it become clear 

that cloning might be used to regenerate animals from the DNA in cells from 

adult individuals of livestock species. 

As will be discussed, there still are 

challenges to accomplishing cloning 

of livestock species, but techniques 

have been developed that have practical applications. One key application is 

in conjunction with genetic engineering, where cloning is used to make the 

regeneration of genetically transformed 

animals less costly in time and money 

(Wilmut, Young, and Campbell 1998). 

Another application might be for livestock owners who wish to generate a 

clone of a particularly valuable individual animal. 

The next section begins with a discussion of how genetics are used traditionally in animal breeding. It is followed by a considerably more detailed 

discussion of the DNA-based techniques that have been developed during 

the last 40 years, including a discussion of both known risks and possible 

beneficial applications of these techniques within the context of food animal production. Although this scientific 

discussion is critical for an adequately 

informed understanding of regulatory issues, readers interested primarily 

in ethical issues may choose to skim 

through discussions of the more complex technical issues. 

Genetics in Conventional

Animal Breeding Programs

The value of animal agriculture enterprises (poultry, livestock, and fish) in 

the United States was estimated at $173 

billion in 2007 (USDA 2008), with the 

value expected to increase together 

with increases in both world population and standard of living (PinstrupAndersen and Pandya-Lorch 1999). 

Although techniques for cloning and 

producing transgenic animals are becoming more efficient, only commercial production of transgenic fish is 

poised to affect availability of animal 

protein in the near future. 

Modern breeds of livestock have 

achieved high production efficiencies 

as a result of traditional animal breeding programs. Between 1945 and 1995, 

for example, milk production increased 

threefold; the number of eggs produced 

by laying hens increased from 134 to 

254 per hen per year; production time 

of broiler chickens to 3 pounds (lb), 

15.4 ounces (1.8 kilograms [kg]) body 

weight decreased from 84 to 43 days on 

one-half the feed; and growth of pigs, 

sheep, goats, and cattle was faster and 

resulted in leaner meat (NRC 2002, 

2004). 

These increases can be attributed 

to various factors depending on species 

and production systems, including

• the use of statistical models to predict breeding values of bulls coupled with sire testing and selection; 

• cross-breeding and artificial insemination (AI) to capture the best genetics from males; 

• synchronization of estrus and ovulation to enhance use of AI; 

• superovulation, AI, and embryo 

transfer to take advantage of desired genetics from females;

• artificial incubation of eggs of poultry species to increase hatching rates; 

• improved nutrition;

• effective disease control through 

improved animal health;

• control of seasonality or photoperiod to enhance production effi-
4 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ciencies in specific species such as 

poultry; 

• improved housing to avoid stress 

resulting from adverse effects of 

weather; and 

• sex reversal in fish to either all female or all male to achieve desired 

production efficiencies in farmraised fish. 

Since the 1960s more advanced 

biotechnologies have been used to a 

limited extent. These biotechnologies 

include assisted reproductive technologies (in vitro maturation of oöcytes1

and in vitro fertilization), embryo splitting to achieve identical twins (clones), 

sexing sperm, and blastomere nuclear 

transfer cloning (Norman et al. 2004). 

Cloning 

Cloning, a term originally used 

in horticulture to describe asexually 

produced progeny, is the process of 

making a copy of an individual or, in 

cellular and molecular terms, groups 

of identical cells and replicas of DNA 

and other molecules. Monozygotic 

twins are clones. Animal cloning in 

the late 1980s resulted from the transfer of nuclei from blastomeres of early 

cleavage-stage embryos to enucleated 

oöcytes, but it also can be achieved by 

transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an oöcyte from which the 

nucleus has been removed (Wilmut, 

Young, and Campbell 1998). Although 

there has been controversy over the validation of experimental results, somatic 

cell nuclear transfer has been used in 

experiments claimed to produce embryonic stem cells (i.e., undifferentiated 

stem cells genetically matched to the 

recipient for research and therapies for 

recovery of function that do not require 

reproductive cloning of animals). 

The progeny from cloning using 

nuclei from either blastomeres or somatic cells are not exact replicas of an 

individual animal because of cytoplasmic inheritance of mitochondrial DNA 

from the recipient egg and other factors in the cytoplasm of oöcytes that 

may influence “reprogramming” of the 

genome of the transferred nucleus and 

subsequent development of the cloned 

organism (Cummins 2001; Jaenisch 

and Wilmut 2001). Cloning from blastomeres and somatic cells may result 

in large calves and lambs, the so-called 

“large offspring syndrome” (Sinclair et 

al. 2000; Young, Sinclair, and Wilmut 

1998), as well as more serious abnormalities (Sinclair et al. 1999). 

Cloning can be accomplished by (1) 

embryo splitting to achieve genetically 

identical individuals, (2) embryonic 

cell nuclear transfer, or (3) somatic cell 

nuclear transfer. With embryo splitting, 

the genome is established and the success rate for producing twins with identical genomic DNA is high. Embryonic 

cell nuclear transfer involves transfer 

of a nucleus from a cell in which the 

genome may be totipotent and requires 

little reprogramming for development 

of a new individual. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is problematic because the 

genome of cells of an adult animal requires that cytoplasmic factors from the 

recipient oöcyte reprogram the genome 

for development of a new individual(s).

Epigenetics is defined as influences 

on a cell that do not alter the genome, 

such as cytoplasmic factors of the oöcyte. Epigenetic reprogramming of the 

genome in nuclei of adult cells often is 

abnormal such that cells of the embryo 

and placenta express some proteins 

incorrectly. This incorrect expression 

often leads to high rates of embryonic, 

fetal, and neonatal deaths, as well as 

abnormal development of the placenta. 

The fetus and newborn also may suffer 

from an enlarged liver, hemorrhaging, 

and abnormalities of the respiratory, 

immune, nervous, and digestive systems (Young and Fairburn 2000).

Nuclear transfers resulting in calves 

whose meat and milk have entered the 

food chain have been from transfer of 

nuclei from cells of embryos. Through 

2001, the number of registered Holstein 

clones that resulted from embryo splitting was 2,226 (754 males and 1,472 

females), and 187 were from nuclear 

transfers (61 males and 126 females). 

On the basis of measures of total milk 

yield, fat content, protein content, somatic cell score, and productive life 

span, cows selected for cloning were 

superior genetically for milk yield, but 

the values for clones resulting from 

embryonic nuclear transfer and embryo 

splitting were similar to and slightly 

less than values for noncloned full sibs, 

respectively (Norman et al. 2004). 

Calves also have resulted from fetal 

fibroblasts (cells from fetuses), skin biopsies (cells from adults), and cumulus 

and granulosa cells (cells from adult 

ovaries and cells surrounding embryos, 

but not embryonic themselves). In fact, 

several companies specialize in producing nuclear-transfer-derived calves from 

skin biopsies sent in by their customers. 

Cloning Animals for Animal 

Agriculture

Cloning livestock species for use 

in animal agriculture is for genotype 

replication; that is, to increase the 

number of males or females with a 

desired genotype and phenotype such 

as milk production. Cloning also may 

be used for genetic conservation of a 

unique animal that may, for example, 

be highly resistant to disease or parasites. Conservation of genetics of early 

ancestors of a species such as the Texas 

Longhorn or Criolla cattle from South 

America may be used to obtain animals 

for studies to understand the genetic basis for desirable traits. 

Gene Targeting and Cloning for 

Expression of Proteins by 

Mammary Gland 

Genetic engineering may be used 

to create animals such as goats and 

cows whose milk can produce valuable 

pharmaceuticals. The animal is genetically engineered to express a gene for a 

protein with pharmaceutical value only 

in milk, including enzymes and clotting factors (Colman 1996; Murray and 

Maga 1999). But this technology also 

can be used to produce many bioactive proteins or commercial products 

such as silk, using genes from spiders. 

Transgenic animals used as bioreactors to produce pharmaceuticals in milk 

likely would be cloned to replicate the 

desired genotype.

Somatic Cell Nuclear Cloning and 

Gene Targeting

Pigs are being genetically engineered so that their organs can be used 

successfully for organ-replacement 

therapies in human medicine (i.e., 

xenotransplantation) (CAST 2004). 1 Italicized terms (except genus and species names) 

are defined in the Glossary.
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5

Humans produce antibodies directed against sugar moieties present on 

the surface of pig cells (Sandrin et al. 

1993), resulting in acute rejection of 

organs from pigs. Therefore, pigs are 

being engineered to silence appropriate 

functional genes for the sugar moieties 

(Lai et al. 2002) so that their organs can 

be used successfully for xenotransplantation. Pigs or other species used for 

xenotransplantation could be cloned to 

replicate the desired genotype, although 

they also could be reproduced by conventional breeding.

Cloning for Biomedical and Medical Research

Cloning has great value to researchers who study animals that have essentially the same genotype regarding their 

response to such issues as growth and 

development, aging, cancer, and various diets and nutrients. Animal models 

for biomedical research also include 

those with specific gene knockouts

that mimic human disease (e.g., sheep 

carrying a mutated collagen gene can 

serve as a model for studies of human 

connective tissue diseases) (McCreath 

et al. 2000). 

Position of Regulatory Agencies 

on Cloned Animals

In January 2008, both the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

(cattle, swine, and goats) and the 

European Food Safety Authority 

(EFSA) (cattle and swine) concluded 

that meat and milk from clones were 

safe. The FDA indicated that clones of 

cattle, swine, and goats and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food are as safe 

to eat as food from conventionally bred 

animals. But they contended that they 

had insufficient information to reach a 

conclusion on the safety of food from 

clones of other animal species, such as 

sheep.

Ectopic DNA to Alter 

Phenotype

Biotechnology can provide methods for modifying the endocrinology 

of domestic animals to affect reproduction, lactation, and growth. Ectopic 

DNA, for example, refers to DNA 

introduced into muscle cells that will 

increase circulating levels of hormones 

such as growth hormone (GH) and insulin (Khan et al. 2002). This technology has been used in pigs and rats to 

increase circulation levels of GH and 

insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in 

the mothers, which results in offspring 

that are heavier at birth and at weaning 

(Draghia-Akli et al. 2002). This is one 

example of the use of biotechnology to 

affect reproductive and endocrine systems during critical development periods, thereby enhancing growth and development of the fetus during gestation 

to ensure its survival and well-being as 

a newborn, and to enhance the mother’s 

milk production.

Sperm-Mediated Gene 

Transfer for Production of 

Transgenic Animals 

Sperm-mediated gene transfer is 

based on biotechnologies that allow 

DNA to be taken up by sperm and used 

in breeding programs to produce transgenic pigs (Lavitrano et al. 2006). This 

biotechnology is inefficient, as uptake 

of DNA and its expression ranges from 

0 to 88%; it is attractive, however, because it is inexpensive and the transgene that is integrated is stable. The 

major disadvantages include random 

insertion sites of the transgene, the 

uncontrolled number of copies integrated into the genome, the effects of 

the transgene on other genes may lead 

to undesired effects, and the expression 

vector may have lethal effects on sperm 

or early embryos. 

Biotechnology for Identifying 

Desirable Genotypes

Sequencing and mapping genomes 

of livestock allow scientists to identify 

genes and understand their regulation 

in the context of improving production 

characteristics and health of animals. 

One outcome is the establishment of 

linkages between inheritance of a desirable trait (e.g., milk yield) and segregation of specific genetic markers coupled 

to that trait. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are specific differences 

in DNA that can be used as gene markers to assist in selection of quantitative trait loci (QTL) responsible for the 

desired trait. 

There are examples of QTL for 

production traits in cattle and swine. 

A QTL related to actions of growth 

hormone is expected to increase annual milk production by about 441 lb. 

(200 kg) per lactation and decrease 

milk fat from 4.4 to 3.4% (Pitman 

2003). A QTL in pigs is associated 

with increased litter size and increased 

survival of piglets (King et al. 2003), 

and an SNP in beef cows is associated with growth traits and production of twin calves (Allan et al. 2007). 

Additional QTL and SNPs will have a 

large impact on the livestock industry. 

This technology can be coupled with 

biopsy and genetic analyses of embryos 

to allow selection of embryos with the 

desired genotype to enhance genetic 

progress in breeding programs. In addition, embryos can be sexed to benefit 

the animal production enterprise (e.g., 

all females for dairy farms), or semen 

can be sorted as X chromosome and Y 

chromosome sperm to achieve desired 

sex of offspring. 

Ethical Issues Overview

The ethical issues associated with 

transgenic animals and mammalian 

cloning (as these techniques are applied to traditional food animals) fit 

into three broad categories. First are 

issues that pertain to the impact of 

this technology on the animals themselves. Second are issues that relate 

to the institutions and procedures that 

govern the research and applications 

context within the agrifood system. 

Finally, there are issues that relate to 

the relationship between humans and 

other animals; the way that humans 

think of or act in regard to nonhumans, 

irrespective of the effect that human 

conduct has on the animals. The underlying ethical principles within each 

of these three domains are distinct, 

and the following discussion will treat 

them as such. Yet arguably, the very 

diversity of these issues contributes to 

the sense that animal biotechnology 

challenges the moral order of society. It is therefore important to recognize that introducing this analytic 

framework may itself seem to impose 

a rational ordering on the discussion 

of animal biotechnology, undercutting 

concerns that are difficult to express 
6 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

clearly but still may be the basis of 

negative reactions.

Impacts on Animals

Most cultural traditions have accepted the view that at least certain 

kinds of harm to nonhuman animals are 

morally significant. Traditionally, these 

views have stressed prohibitions of cruelty. Within recent decades, there have 

been attempts to articulate more carefully the basis for these views, and, in 

some instances, to introduce dramatic 

reforms in the way that ethical duties 

to animals are conceived. In particular, philosophers and animal advocates 

have inveighed against a view associated with Rene Descartes, who saw 

animals as “machines” without ability to register sensory impressions or 

feel pain. Although this view may have 

been quite influential in the biomedical 

sciences, Bernard Rollin, a professor 

of both philosophy and animal science, 

has argued that those who manage livestock for a living have never doubted 

that animals have subjectively felt 

needs and are capable of feeling pain. 

Effective husbandry always has recognized an implicit ethic that regards 

animals as moral subjects, but the terms 

in which duties to animals are specified 

remain largely unspoken within that 

ethic (Rollin 1989).

Three philosophical strategies have 

been proposed as a way to articulate the 

basis of ethical duties to animals. The 

animal welfare strategy usually is associated with the work of Peter Singer, 

a professor of bioethics. Singer argues 

that people should attempt a rough estimate of the pain or suffering in dealings 

with animals, then weigh this against 

the benefit derived. Practices in which 

benefits are offset by the suffering of 

animals are viewed as ethically unacceptable (Singer 1993). This approach 

generally is understood as a version of 

ethical utilitarianism.

The animal rights strategy associated with philosopher Tom Regan is 

intended to block this kind of trade-off 

reasoning by proposing that animals are 

wronged when they are treated simply as a means to an end, as a practice 

that justifies animal suffering in light 

of benefits derived presumably would 

do. Regan argues that animals possess 

a form of individual identity, coherence in their subjective experience that 

deserves ethical respect (Regan 2003). 

This view would prohibit any use of animals that is contrary to the interest of 

the individual animal, including many 

common agricultural practices such as 

the slaughter of animals for food. 

Rollin also uses the term “rights” to 

convey the fact that people do regard 

themselves as having duties to individual animals, but he regards the basis 

for these duties as residing in a social 

consensus on moral duty, noting that 

whereas this consensus forbids certain 

exploitative practices without regard 

to the benefits derived, it nonetheless 

continues to find the use of animals for 

food to be morally acceptable (Rollin 

1993). This third strategy can be called 

the new social ethic for animals. 

Of these three philosophers, only 

Rollin has written extensively on animal biotechnology. He has argued that 

transgenic and cloning technologies 

would be ethically unacceptable if they 

resulted in greater animal suffering or 

frustration than would be experienced 

by animals of the same species and 

breed under similar husbandry (Rollin 

1996). If there are no adverse impacts 

on individual animals, however, there 

is no basis for an ethical objection to 

animal biotechnology. It seems likely 

that Singer’s animal welfare approach 

would reach a similar conclusion. 

Although an animal rights view might 

provide a basis for opposing experimental work on animals intended for 

human benefit, it is difficult to see how 

even this view could articulate an objection to successfully accomplished 

transgenic or cloning work, provided 

the resulting animals led functional and 

cognitively satisfying lives. Of course, 

an animal rights advocate might object 

to the research phase of animal biotechnology, and the objections would 

be supported by animal welfarists if 

the path to a successful transgenic or 

cloned animal involved its suffering.

Institutions and Procedures

As discussed more fully in the 

section on “Regulation of Animal 

Biotechnology,” animal research in 

the United States is subject to the 

provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 

(AWA) of 1966. Although agricultural 

animals technically are exempt from 

the Act, the majority of both for-profit 

and nonprofit research organizations 

use the provisions of the Institutional 

Animal Care and Use Committee 

(IACUC) to oversee research. The 

IACUC committees are regarded 

widely as having an ethical as well as 

legal function. Applying a rough test 

commensurate at least with Rollin’s 

new social ethic to projects involving 

animal biotechnology would be among 

these functions. 

One of the key ethical questions 

associated with an IACUC is: Has the 

committee been constituted so that 

animal interests will be taken into account when experimental protocols are 

reviewed? Although U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) procedures for 

IACUC oversight require membership of nonscientists and unaffiliated 

parties (i.e., people who are not employed by the organization conducting the research), some organizations 

have recruited committee members 

who have a declared interest in ensuring that research goes forward (such as 

members of groups that advocate for 

specific disease cures), whereas others 

have appointed members from humane 

societies or other “pro-animal” groups. 

Arguably, the latter choice represents a 

more ethically appropriate way to discharge institutional responsibilities associated with IACUC procedures.

Currently, no comparable institutional approach governs the care and 

treatment of agricultural animals in 

production environments. But several trade organizations (such as the 

National Pork Board and the United 

Egg Producers), as well as large retail interests who buy animal products 

(such as the National Council of Chain 

Restaurants), currently are developing 

new entities and practices to address 

ethical issues associated with commercial animal production. These entities 

include advisory councils and the incorporation of ethical recommendations 

into husbandry guidelines that long 

have been promulgated by such groups. 

Because transgenic and cloned animals 

are, at present, rare within the context 

of commercial animal agriculture, these 

nascent institutional approaches have 

yet to consider the ethical issues that 
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

people or the society that undertakes 

these projects rather than on the ethical acceptability of what is done to the 

individual animal. Thus, whereas an 

animal rights view would object to any 

practice that sees the animal merely as 

the means to an end, the objection here 

is focused more on the venality or corruption of character either within the 

scientific and animal production community, or perhaps within society at 

large. 

Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and technology studies, has characterized this type of ethical issue as 

a challenge to society’s moral order. 

She sees religiously based objections 

that characterize genetic engineering 

as a form of “playing God” in similar 

terms. The point is not that this science 

violates specific religious precepts. 

Rather, the point is that human beings 

have set themselves and their interests 

so far above those of the creatures in 

their care as to have violated implicit 

expectations that frame our understandings of civility, humility, grace, and 

charity. The specific scientific interventions may be less characteristic of 

this ethical failing than is an overall 

attitude or manner of conduct regarding the development and governance of 

the technology. The fact that regulatory 

agencies are unable to intervene against 

specific technologies deemed to meet 

standards of animal, human, and environmental health can be interpreted, in 

this regard, as part of a general societal failure to regulate human conduct 

in light of moral expectations (Jasanoff 

2007). 

Here, too, the large scale and automation of husbandry associated with 

concentrated animal feeding operations 

(CAFOs) is undoubtedly a component 

of the concern. Although CAFOs currently in use do not in any way use 

biotechnology, they are the end result 

of scientifically based studies on animal 

nutrition, reproduction, and husbandry, 

combined with principles of agricultural engineering. As such, it is not unreasonable for someone not personally 

involved in science or animal agriculture to perceive a pattern of change in 

livestock production and to interpret 

developments in animal biotechnology as elements in this broader pattern. 

Thus, without regard to whether biotechnology will improve or materially 

affect the welfare of animals within a 

CAFO system, it is possible, particularly given no reason or evidence to draw 

a contrary conclusion, for a member of 

the public to associate ethical concerns 

with the general drift of science-based 

animal husbandry, and to see animal 

biotechnology as a particularly cogent 

example of this drift. 

Religious Views on

Animal Biotechnology

Among the world’s largest religions, there are actually very few clearcut religious taboos prohibiting transgenic and other animal technologies. 

Religions typically draw on traditions 

involving several centuries of religious 

teachings. Because biotechnology is a 

creation of recent decades, it is not surprising that traditional religious sources 

do not address it directly. Ethical implications of religious traditions, however, can be drawn from the general role 

and status of animals within the religious tradition, as well as from traditions that address animal care and use, 

animal breeding, and human diet. On 

a few occasions individuals or groups 

representing religious traditions have 

issued opinions on the ethics of animal 

biotechnology, although even these 

opinions are understood as advice to religious authorities rather than as definitive pronouncements. 

Western Religions

The traditional approach of many 

Western religions—those based on 

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—permits animal biotechnology because 

humans are the instruments through 

which God works toward bringing creation to final perfection. Whereas animals are God’s creatures and have their 

own moral value, they are at the service 

of men and women, so that humans 

also can achieve their overall development through them. Humans cannot use 

animals indiscriminately, but if animals 

are used to provide a significant human 

benefit, that use is permissible. Thus, 

creating and using animals through biotechnology is permissible as long as the 

need is sufficient and animal welfare is 

respected. But this view is balanced by 

are the subject of this Issue Paper. If 

and when transgenic and cloning applications become more common, it 

will be important that these emerging 

entities for animal ethics adjust their 

procedures to address issues relevant to 

biotechnology. 

A final category of institutional issues addresses the need for consumers to retain the ability to lead lives 

consistent with the diverse values that 

exist throughout society. As other sections indicate, it is reasonable to expect 

that some individuals will resist animal 

products from genetic engineering or 

cloning, perhaps for religious or even 

arbitrary reasons. Is a food system ethically justifiable if it makes it impossible 

for people who have a strong preference for avoiding these products to do 

so? Here, the safety or animal health 

implications of biotechnology may be 

irrelevant to a given individual.

Yet, as discussed in the section on 

“Regulation of Animal Biotechnology,” 

current regulatory approaches are unrelated to an individual’s ability to make 

dietary choices based on personal values. The USDA Organic Standard may 

be the only recourse for such individuals, even though other aspects of organic food may be of little interest to them. 

As such, there are critical ethical questions about the institutional structure of 

animal products markets as they relate 

to an individual’s ability to express 

values in animal product consumption 

decisions. 

Relationships between 

Humans and Animals

Some of the most strident ethically 

based opposition to animal biotechnology focuses on the ways modern 

technologies have caused the traditional 

relationship between humans and farm 

animals to change. The willingness 

to deploy techniques such as genetic 

engineering and cloning in research 

programs that change, in some views 

dramatically, both the nature of animals 

and the way they are used can be seen 

as ethically problematic in this light. 

Researchers’ attitudes then are viewed 

as a form of domination, pride, and 

manipulation, even when no individual 

animals are harmed. Here, the ethical 

focus is on the moral character of the 
8 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

other considerations. Some religious 

leaders in all three major Western religions have opposed animal biotechnology as an impermissible usurpation of 

God’s role as Creator. Other leaders 

have opposed some aspects of biotechnology because of its potential threat 

to biodiversity or “the integrity and 

ecological balance of creation” (UMC 

1992).

The result is that there is no consensus about general permissibility of animal biotechnology within Western religions and even within denominations. 

For example, Jewish theological reaction to cloning animals has been mixed, 

although cloning generally raises fewer 

issues than transgenics because cloning does not involve mixing species. 

In Islam, Shiite leaders generally have 

been more open to animal biotechnology than Sunni leaders, but even within 

sects there has been considerable division. The Church of Scotland, which 

has studied aspects of animal cloning 

extensively, supports the use of animal 

biotechnology for therapeutic purposes, 

but rejects uses of animal cloning for 

meat and milk production as an inappropriate commodification of animals 

(Church 2002).

Although there has been little specific religious discussion about the 

implications of animal biotechnology and even less joint discussion, 

American religious leaders acted with 

one voice opposing the patenting of 

genetically engineered animals. In 

May 1995, a group of religious leaders 

representing more than 80 faiths and 

denominations joined Jeremy Rifkin, 

an economist who has attacked expansion of biotechnology through patent 

law, in a press conference denouncing 

the patenting of genetically engineered 

animals, and human genes, cells, and 

organs. Their statement said: “We 

believe that humans and animals are 

creations of God, not humans, and as 

such should not be patented as human 

inventions” (Crawford 1987). The 

statement did not take a stand on the 

permissibility of genetic engineering 

itself, nor did the overall group oppose patents on techniques involving 

genetic manipulation. Although the 

statement garnered considerable media 

attention, it did not have any impact 

on American patenting law. 

 

Eastern Religions

Eastern religions such as Buddhism, 

Hinduism, and Confucianism do not 

use the concept of animals in the service of humans. Instead, these religions give animals a moral status that 

often is almost equal to that of humans. 

Humans have a higher status only to 

the extent that they are more capable 

of achieving the philosophical ideals 

of spiritual wisdom and liberation. For 

Hindus, incarnations of the Gods include animal forms (Crawford 2003). 

Both Buddhism and Hinduism have a 

belief in cross-species reincarnation. 

Most Eastern religions embrace the 

idea of continuing evolution of humans, 

animals, and plants as an ideal, and the 

fact that such evolution is man-made is 

not a barrier. 

There also is a pervasive notion, 

however, that there must be a balance of nature in human, plant, animal, and environmental interactions 

(Epstein 1998). This interpretation 

means that animal suffering would be 

balanced equally against human benefit (Crawford 2003). But there is no 

consensus among scholars of Eastern 

religions about the religious permissibility of animal biotechnology. Some 

religious scholars believe technology 

can be used on an animal only to benefit that animal, and most biotechnology 

is a violation of that principle (Epstein 

1998). Other scholars believe that animal biotechnology may be used if it is 

necessary for life but not to enhance 

pleasure (Crawford 2003).

Asian religious traditions notably 

are distinct from Western traditions in 

the breadth and variety with which ethical teachings are interpreted by practitioners of the faith tradition. Thus the 

key ethical questions about animal biotechnology from the Asian perspective 

may have less to do with the ultimate 

permissibility of genetic engineering or 

cloning than with whether practitioners 

of a particular variety or sect within a 

faith tradition have had ample opportunity to discern how and whether the 

technology is relevant to the oftencomplex dietary and household practices believed to affect fate and fortune. 

As such, information about animal biotechnology and the opportunity to study 

the implications of transgenic or cloned 

animals may be deeply important to 

these traditions, even when no specific 

prohibitions are made. 

Views on Food Use

There are specific religious concerns involving food use of animal 

biotechnology. For example, most 

Hindus attempt to be strict vegetarians, 

and there could be concerns about the 

extent that animal DNA is mixed in 

with genetically modified (GM) plants. 

Because Hindu bioethics is concerned 

with sentient life rather than DNA, 

however, this concern seems diminished. Both Jewish law and Islamic 

law have food restrictions that may be 

affected by biotechnology. Although 

the U.S. Islamic Jurisprudence Council 

has ruled that GM plants currently on 

the market that may contain animal 

genes are permissible, or halal, the permissibility of foods using genes derived 

from swine or more significant species 

mixing has not been determined (Mirza 

2004). 

Jewish kosher rules also are unclear 

when it comes to transgenic animals; 

the use of transgenic animals with some 

genetic mixing, even swine, has been 

found acceptable for food use as long 

as the genetic change is not visible to 

the naked eye (Reisner 2000). Jewish 

law also includes the prohibition 

kilayim, which forbids the mixing of 

different species of animals and plants. 

Kilayim forbids the act of mixing species, but does not forbid receiving the 

benefits of that mixing. Moreover, 

Jewish law has been interpreted to 

mean that the act must be a sexual act, 

which would exclude in vitro laboratory genetic manipulation. 

Public Perceptions of

Animal Biotechnology

Animal biotechnology has been 

expanding rapidly in the last three 

decades. Public perceptions have 

played, and will continue to play, a 

significant role in the development 

and commercialization of its applications. Technologies do not develop in 

a vacuum; rather, their trajectories take 

place within a cultural context. This 

context includes public opinions that, 

like other social factors, can play a role 

in the pace and direction of technology 

development.
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

Public Opinion Studies

Two key questions can be gleaned 

from public opinion studies on agricultural biotechnology generally, and 

on animal biotechnology particularly. 

These questions underlie the views of 

many publics: What is the purpose for 

the specific application? How is the 

work carried out? Many public opinion studies reveal a fairly consistent 

hierarchy of purpose: Applications 

intended to generate health and medical benefits are viewed most positively, 

followed by applications with environmental benefits. European surveys have 

found a consistent ordering, in decreasing favorability, for “genetic testing 

for heritable diseases; drug production 

using bacteria modified to contain human genes; bioremediation using GM 

bacteria; medicinal human cell or tissue cloning; use of plant genes in GM 

crops; animal cloning to produce drugs 

in their milk; and for producing foods 

to make them higher in protein, keep 

longer, or change the taste” (Gaskell 

2000). The percentage of survey respondents seeing usefulness ranged 

from 83% to 54%, and moral acceptability from 74% to 36%. 

The way research is carried out—

including the object of manipulation—

also influences public perceptions. In 

this regard, public acceptability also 

exhibits a hierarchy. Work on microorganisms generates the least concern, 

followed by work on plants. More 

objections are registered for genetic 

modification of animals (Frewer and 

Shepherd 1995; Frewer, Howard, and 

Shepherd 1996; Hoban 2004). Whereas 

approximately one in five persons in 

the United States thinks that creating 

hybrid plants through genetic modification is “morally wrong,” more than 

half feel that way about GM animals 

(Hallman et al. 2002). This disapproval of GM animals seems to cut across 

gender, age, and educational categories among Americans, although more 

women than men have expressed disapproval (Table 1). Although health 

and medical benefits provided by genetic modification are supported most 

frequently, that support sometimes is 

modulated by how the benefits are obtained. For example, U.S. and Canadian 

respondents view drugs and vaccines 

produced through animals less favorably than drugs and vaccines produced 

through plants (Decima 2004).

These opinion patterns are similar internationally. Consumers in 10 

countries were surveyed about different biotechnology uses. More than 

80% supported using biotechnology to 

develop human medicines; 75% supported using biotechnology for environmental clean-up. Slightly more 

than 50%, however, indicated support 

for GM animal feed that resulted in 

healthier meat products, whereas 40% 

supported the use of cloned animals for 

medical research. It is noteworthy that 

almost 75% of consumers in these 10 

countries opposed the genetic modification of animals to increase productivity (Hoban 2004).

There are additional nuances to 

public views on animal biotechnology that need to be considered, including the moral status of animals. 

The advocacy of animal rights and 

animal welfare groups and the incorporation of pets as part of the family 

circle have made the status of animals 

a mainstream concern (AEBC 2002). 

Investigations into public views on animal experimentation, for example, have 

shown that people are concerned with 

(1) knowing the purpose of the experiment, (2) avoiding potential unnecessary suffering of the animals, (3) ensuring that requirements for protecting 

animal welfare are met, and (4) determining whether alternatives are available (AEBC 2002; Knight 2007).

A second concern is the boundary 

between what is considered “natural” 

and “unnatural.” Many people feel that 

the crossing of species’ boundaries is 

unnatural, and this cross-species work 

becomes especially problematic when 

higher life forms are involved (AEBC 

2002; Gaskell 2000; Hallman et al. 

2002; Verhoog 2003). The process of genetic engineering also is associated with 

images of the “unnatural.” A third concern relates to the consequences of genetic modification, particularly the longterm impacts of GM crops and animals 

on human health and the environment.

Public Awareness

In general, public awareness of 

plant and animal biotechnology is low, 

although more people are aware of biotechnology in plants than in animals 

(Table 2). The majority of Americans—

at least two-thirds—are unaware that 

foods produced through biotechnology currently are in the supermarket 

Table 1. Acceptance of plant-based and animal-based genetic modification, by gender, age,

and education (adapted from Hallman et al. 2002)1

	 Approve	 Disapprove	 Unsure

	 (percentage)	 (percentage)	 (percentage)

Plant	 Animal	 Plant	 Animal	 Plant	 Animal

Sex	

Male	 65	 36	 32	 59	 4	 5

Female	 53	 21	 40	 74	 7	 5

Age

< 35	 63	 31	 34	 65	 3	 4

35–54	 56	 27	 38	 67	 6	 6

		55+ 55	 21	 37	 71	 8	 8

Education

High school graduation	 51	 24	 43	 73	 6	 3

or less

Some college	 65	 27	 31	 66	 4	 8

College graduation 64	 36	 29	 59	 7	 5

1

Note: “Approve” includes those who “strongly” and “somewhat approve”; “Disapprove” includes

those who “somewhat” and “strongly disapprove.”		N=1203. Question: “In general, do you approve

or disapprove of creating hybrid (plants) animals using genetic modification?”
10 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(Hallman et al. 2003; IFIC 2007). An 

International Food Information Council 

survey asked about three approaches 

to animal biotechnology: (1) genomics (“animal biotechnology that uses 

knowledge about the genetic makeup of animals to aid in conventional 

breeding and selection”); (2) genetic 

engineering (“animal biotechnology 

that allows us to move beneficial traits 

from one animal to another in a more 

precise way”); and (3) cloning (“animal biotechnology that retains desirable traits by producing an animal that 

is an identical twin”). The numbers of 

respondents who were at least somewhat favorable were 40, 35, and 22%, 

respectively (IFIC 2007), suggesting 

that cloning still may be associated 

with the negative side of biotechnology 

(Einsiedel 2000). 

Influencing Factors

Certain factors help to explain perceptions and attitudes toward applications of agricultural biotechnology. 

The risk–benefit calculus is certainly 

one influencing factor. Some studies have found that it is the perception 

of benefits that acts as an important 

decision rule, leading individuals to 

determine whether perceived risks are 

more or less significant (Gaskell et al. 

2004; Knight 2007). It also is important to note that quite often, publics do 

not always interpret risk and benefit in 

purely utilitarian terms. “In the public 

mind, risks go beyond issues of health 

to include moral hazards (is it right to 

do this?), democratic hazards (who is 

funding and controlling biotechnology?), and uncertainties (will there be 

as-yet-unknown adverse consequences?)” (Gaskell et al. 2003; Marris et al. 

2001).

Another factor that has some influence on public views is knowledge 

or understanding (Allum et al. 2008). 

Significantly, the explanatory role of 

knowledge is not as simple as “information acquisition leads to acceptance.” Depending on the application, 

more knowledge can indeed influence 

opinions—sometimes in the direction 

of more positive attitudes and sometimes in the direction of a negative or 

more precautionary stance (Hallman et 

al. 2003; Scholderer and Frewer 2003).

One of the more consistent predictors seems to be trust in the managers 

of a technology, including its regulators (Hornig Priest, Bonfadelli, and 

Rusanen 2003). A study of consumers 

in five European countries demonstrated that “proactive consumer protection” 

was related positively to consumers’ 

evaluation of food risk management 

quality, whereas “opaque and reactive 

risk management” was related negatively to food risk management quality 

(Van Kleef et al. 2007).

Regulation of Animal

Biotechnology

When the biotechnology industry became an economic reality in the 

early 1980s, the White House Office 

of Science and Technology undertook 

a study to determine how science and 

industry should be regulated. In the 

Coordinated Framework for Regulation 

of Biotechnology, it was determined 

that the new technology was not inherently risky and could be integrated into 

existing statutory and regulatory structures under the auspices of the FDA, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and the USDA (Coordinated 

Framework 1986). These agencies derive their regulatory authority from an 

assortment of statutes,2 none of which 

anticipated the specific issues of biotechnology. As a result, there are gaps 

in—and overlaps of—authority, as well 

as considerable ambiguity.

Regulatory Responsibility

Animal biotechnology primarily is 

regulated by the FDA and the USDA. 

The FDA is responsible for food safety 

issues for food animals created through 

biotechnology and for drug safety issues for transgenic and otherwise modified animals used for pharmaceutical 

production. The USDA, through the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) and the Food Safety 

and Inspection Service, regulates food 

products created by animal biotechnology. Until recently, the FDA was 

the sole agency responding to issues 

regarding animal transgenics, but that 

responsibility now is being shared 

with APHIS, whose role may grow. 

Nonetheless, although the APHIS 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services 

considered new regulations for transgenic animals as part of an initiative 

dealing with all genetically engineered 

organisms (USDA–APHIS 2009), the 

FDA took the lead role with guidelines issued in January 2009 (USFDA–

HHS 2009). The FDA also determined 

that meat and milk from cloned cattle, 

swine, and goats are as safe to eat as 

those from conventionally produced animals (USFDA–HHS 2008). Although 

animal biotechnology may raise environmental issues, the EPA currently 

2

 Animal Health Protection Act of 2002, United 

States Code, vol. 7, sec. 8301-8320; Animal 

Quarantine Laws, United States Code, vol. 21, sec. 

101-135; Animal Welfare Act, United States Code, 

vol. 7, sec. 2131-2159; Egg Products Inspection Act, 

United States Code, vol. 21, sec. 1031-1056; Federal 

Meat Inspection Act, United States Code, vol. 21, 

sec. 601-691; Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, United 

States Code, vol. 21, sec. 301-399; Health Research 

Extension Act, United States Code, vol. 42, sec. 

201-300gg-92; Public Health Service Act, United 

States Code, vol. 42, sec. 262, 264; Poultry Products 

Inspection Act, United States Code, vol. 21, sec. 

451-471; Virus, Serums and Toxins Act, United 

States Code, vol. 21, sec. 151-159.

Table 2. Americans’ awareness of plant and animal biotechnology (IFIC 2007)

Plant Biotechnology	 Animal Biotechnology

(Percentage)	 (Percentage)

Heard or read about

Some—A lot	 37	 22

Little or nothing	 63	 78

Overall impression

Somewhat—Very favorable	 33	 24

Neither favorable nor unfavorable	 30	 26

Not very—Not at all favorable	 18	 23

Don’t know	 19	 27
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11

does not regulate in that domain; environmental assessments of specific products are undertaken by the FDA. 

Product-versus-Process

In determining the use of existing statutory and regulatory structures to regulate biotechnology, the 

Coordinated Framework also essentially determined the focus of the regulatory review. Because U.S. regulators 

do not view the process of biotechnology to be inherently risky, generally 

only the products of biotechnology are 

regulated. This product-versus-process 

distinction is based on the fact that a 

significant amount of American federal 

law regulating biotechnology draws its 

jurisdictional authority from the commerce clause. For example, under the 

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 

the FDA’s authority to regulate the use 

of animals for food or pharmaceutical 

use may be limited to “articles” whose 

commercial distribution the FDA can 

regulate (FDCA 2006). The FDA’s legal authority to regulate those articles is 

grounded in its power to regulate their 

distribution in interstate commerce. 

Hence, the process is implicated only to 

the extent it affects the final product.

“Animal Drug” Regulations

The FDA bases its authority to 

regulate genetically engineered animals 

under the FDA’s “animal drug” regulations, because like a drug, the engineering is intended to “alter the structure or 

function” of the animals (Pew Initiative 

2004). This involves stretching the statutory definition considerably because 

the FDCA implies that drugs work 

through chemical action, and unlike a 

typical drug, the engineering continues 

beyond the affected animal to its progeny (FDCA 2006; Pew Initiative 2004). 

Thus, at the very least, the FDA’s authority under this rubric is questionable. The Supreme Court, however, 

has allowed fairly broad interpretations of FDCA drug definitions when 

the FDA has sought regulatory authority over some segments of the industry 

(United States 1969). Moreover, the 

FDA’s assertion of authority is unlikely 

to be challenged, as the biotechnology 

industry has embraced the animal drug 

rubric because it is anxious to have 

regulations in place to ensure consumer 

acceptance and promote growth of the 

industry (Gottlieb and Wheeler 2008).

This regulatory focus on products 

rather than process has ethical ramifications. Other than in issues raised by 

the AWA, which is itself limited, much 

ethical review does not occur until a 

product is far along in the development 

process, and most of that ethical review 

tends to be about whether the article is 

safe for its intended purpose. Thus, the 

discussion does not focus on whether 

cloning, genetic engineering, or other 

biotechnologies are appropriate methods—or even whether the resulting 

products are socially or economically 

valuable or ethically appropriate—but 

rather on whether the products are safe 

for use, or “generally recognized as 

safe” (GRAS).

Postmarket and Labeling 

Regulations

Once a product created by animal biotechnology comes to market, 

it is subject to FDA and APHIS labeling requirements. These requirements, 

however, center on the function of 

the product rather than on the method 

whereby it was created. In food biotechnology, a product that is considered 

GRAS and substantially equivalent to 

food products already on the market is 

not required to be labeled. Thus, the 

FDA rejected labeling requirements 

for milk products derived from cows 

given recombinant bovine somatotropin

(rBST), and the FDA Risk Assessment 

considering food products derived 

from cloned animals or their progeny also does not recommend labeling the products as such. The exception to this pattern may be irradiated 

foods, but the FDA’s contention there 

is that the irradiation at least minimally 

modifies the food. Moreover, the FDA 

recently has recommended that labeling requirements for irradiated foods be 

relaxed (Irradiation 2007). Foods created through genetic engineering that 

changes the animals’ genome, however, 

would not be substantially equivalent, 

and those products presumably would 

be subject to labeling requirements. 

To date, attempts to have state laws 

label food created through biotechnology as such have failed. The U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

rejected an attempt by Vermont to require rBST milk products to be labeled 

(International Dairy Foods 1996). That 

decision, however, may be flawed, and 

new attempts through federal or state 

statute to label food derived through 

cloning methods may be successful. 

The ethical question implicated by such 

labeling is whether consumers have a 

right to know, apart from FDA safety 

assessments, the process by which food 

is manufactured. But supporting such 

a right to know causes other problems. 

On one hand, transparency is an ethical goal; on the other, labeling could 

needlessly frighten or confuse consumers. The FDCA currently does not 

give the FDA authority to consider that 

question; FDA’s authority is limited to 

safety issues.

It is not clear what kind of postmarketing requirements the FDA can 

impose on biotechnologically derived 

animal production. The FDA has secured voluntary commitments from 

product sponsors to conduct postmarket 

research on rBST (Pew Initiative 2004), 

but it is uncertain whether the FDA has 

authority to require such research. In 

addition, it is not clear what kind of 

tracking systems the FDA or APHIS 

can impose on GM animals. Several 

companies engaged in livestock cloning have introduced a tracking system 

for cloned livestock and their progeny, 

but that program is voluntary (Pollack 

2007). Under current law, neither 

agency has authority to regulate all 

animals that might be used under that 

technology; therefore, there are certainly potential gaps. 

Animal Welfare and 

Institutional Animal Care and 

Use Committees

The AWA regulates the treatment 

of animals used in experimentation by 

research facilities that receive federal 

funds or transport live animals in interstate commerce. The word “animal” 

includes warm-blooded animals such as 

dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea 

pigs, and rabbits; but excludes birds, 

rats, mice, and farm animals used for 

food or for improving animal nutrition, 

breeding, management, or production 

efficiency, or for improving the quality 
12 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

of food or fiber (AWA 2006). Thus, depending on how broadly that definition 

is interpreted, quite a few animals used 

in biotechnology may be excluded. 

The AWA is enforced by the USDA, a 

fact that has a certain irony, given that 

many of the animals that fall under the 

USDA’s traditional scope are not included in the Act’s definition. 

The AWA requires research facilities to create IACUCs (AWA 2006) to 

inspect animal care facilities and to 

review experimentation and care of animals. The IACUCs must have at least 

three members, one of whom must be 

a veterinarian, and another who may 

not be associated with the institution. 

The legislative history of the AWA encourages the use of the ethical construct of the “three Rs”: Reduction in 

the number, Refinement of techniques, 

and Replacement (Congressional 

Record 1991; Russell and Burch 1959). 

Institutions that receive federal funding for their research are subject to 

additional broader guidelines (PHS 

2002), and many entities choose to 

seek accreditation from the Association 

for Assessment and Accreditation of 

Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC).

Importantly, although the AWA 

does set standards for the use of animals in experimentation, it does not 

regulate the purpose of experimentation 

(AWA 2006). Thus, under the AWA, an 

IACUC’s ethical review is limited considerably. For example, because of the 

three Rs construct, IACUCs may determine that an experiment is impermissible because of redundancy (i.e., other 

similar or identical experimentation already has tested a hypothesis such that 

additional use of animals is not ethical). 

Similarly, IACUCs will make sure that 

animals born with considerable deformities are euthanized. IACUCs may 

not determine, however,—beyond the 

humane requirements of the AWA—

that a cloning or genetic engineering 

technique is unethical. If that review 

occurs, it occurs outside the IACUC 

rubric, and usually only because the 

research facility has voluntarily elected 

to do so. 

European Union

In contrast to the American approach to biotechnology, European 

regulators view biotechnology as “a 

novel process requiring novel regulatory provisions” (Gaskell et al. 1999). 

The European Medicines Agency is 

responsible for the approval of pharmaceuticals derived through animal 

biotechnology, and the EFSA is responsible for approval of food derived from 

animal biotechnology. The interaction 

of these agencies and member states is 

beyond the scope of this paper. Some 

directives are required to be passed into 

legislation by member states, and some 

issues, especially those with moral implications, are left to member states’ 

discretion. In certain circumstances, 

member states also may require stricter 

regulation than required by the European 

directives.

Pharmaceutical or other biomedical 

use of biotechnology is much less controversial in Europe than food use, and 

the level of regulation reflects that attitude (Gaskell et al. 2006). There is also 

only a tiny industry involved in food 

biotechnology. For example, until recently, only Spain was truly involved in 

genetically modified organism (GMO) 

plant production. Therefore, many 

GMO regulations actually are directed 

at importation of GMO products, and 

this focus has had an important effect 

on the evolution of the regulation. 

Regarding regulation of food biotechnology, the EFSA is responsible for 

scientific risk assessment; risk management policy is handled by the European 

Parliament and member states (Podger 

2004). That division of labor insulates 

the scientific assessment from political meddling. Directive 2001/18/EC 

regulates the distribution of GMOs and 

GMO use in food products, but there 

are no specific European regulations for 

food products derived from biotechnology, such as cloning that does not involve genetic modification. No distinction is made between animal or plant 

products (Directive 2001).

Directive 2001/18/EC requires notification before a GMO is placed on 

the market. The Directive also provides 

for a period of public comment; an assessment report, including an environmental risk assessment; and a “stepby-step” introduction into the market. 

Each step requires additional assessment and evaluation. The Directive 

also requires that each GMO product 

be labeled with the words “This product contains genetically modified organisms.” Postmarket monitoring also 

is required, including complete traceability and immediate adverse event 

reporting. 

Directive 2001/18/EC resulted in a 

European Union (EU) moratorium banning importation of all GM products. 

The Directive adopted a precautionary approach allowing for such a ban 

if there was a potential risk to human 

health or the environment. Because the 

trigger for a moratorium required only 

a potential risk rather than a proven 

risk, such a moratorium was an almost 

certain consequence of the language of 

the directive. In response, the United 

States and Argentina filed a complaint 

with the World Trade Organization 

(WTO), and the WTO ruled against the 

European ban. The EU has chosen not 

to appeal the WTO ruling, and there are 

some indications that EU citizens are 

poised to embrace biotechnology more 

fully (Gaskell et al. 2006; Zika et al. 

2007). Whether that new enthusiasm 

will extend to food use of animal biotechnology remains to be seen.

Interestingly, the process taken by 

the EU does not mean a broader ethical 

review of biotechnology. Instead, at 

least so far, the process approach combined with the precautionary principle 

simply means that the technology does 

not go forward or importation is refused. The specific ethical debate still 

becomes kindled only when a product 

is about to be commercialized.

China

China currently is the sixth largest 

producer of GM crops, and its government has made a strong commitment 

to both plant and animal biotechnology. Animal biotechnology in China is 

governed primarily by three agencies: 

the Ministry of Health, the Ministry 

of Science and Technology, and the 

Ministry of Agriculture. A review of 

regulation in China is particularly difficult because there is relatively little 

formal legislation in the Western sense. 

But the government will affect patterns of practice significantly through 

funding initiatives as well as through 

informal means such as the cultivation 

of expectations and a cultural climate 
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13

(Döring 2004).

Although there are regulations regarding human cloning (Leggett 2003), 

there are no specific regulations regarding animal cloning. The human cloning 

regulations specifically ban research for 

human procreation, but they leave open 

virtually all other research. Generally, 

research endeavors are controlled much 

more lightly than clinical or commercial applications. An attempt to formally regulate animal welfare was abandoned in 2004 (Li 2004). New efforts 

to do so recently have begun, but no 

regulations have been proposed yet.

The most extensive regulation is 

centered on biosafety issues. Animal 

biotechnology that involves genetic 

modification is governed by six instruments that apply equally to plants and 

animals: A State Council of China general regulation on biosafety of GMOs, 

four Ministry of Agriculture decrees, 

and complementary customs regulations (Connor, Boucher, and Li 2006). 

These regulations require a full risk 

assessment of food safety and environmental impact for both importation 

and production of GMOs (Wang 2007). 

Labeling requirements reflect an approach that is at least partly process 

based. Although all these regulations 

formally apply to animals, there are 

few indications of enforcement; almost 

all enforcement involves plant importation and production. 

Despite apparently conservative 

ethical thinking regarding human reproductive cloning (Döring 2004), it 

probably is fair to say that the Chinese 

government takes a very liberal stance 

regarding biotechnology ethics. There 

is little regulation of research, but there 

is considerable funding support and 

positive media reporting on technical 

achievements. The public shows little 

opposition (Yang 2004).

International Protocols

There are two main international protocols that affect animal biotechnology. The Codex Alimentarius 

Commission (Codex) and the 

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the 

Convention on Biological Diversity. 

The Codex, jointly administered by two 

United Nations agencies—the World 

Health Organization and the Food and 

Agriculture Organization—sets international safety standards for foods. 

Before a food produced by biotechnology can be marketed, it is subjected 

to a pre-market assessment that evaluates both the direct and unintended 

effects on food safety and nutritional 

aspects that might arise because of the 

use of technology (Codex 2003, 2007). 

Although it is a thorough risk assessment of the food safety issues, the 

Codex does not address the environmental, ethical, moral, or socioeconomic impacts of the technology.

The Cartagena Protocol on 

Biosafety to the Convention on 

Biological Diversity primarily is an 

environmental treaty (Cartagena 2000). 

Its main purpose is to protect biological diversity from risks posed by “living modified organisms” (LMOs), 

taking into account potential risks to 

human health. Although the Cartagena 

Protocol thus far primarily has focused 

on plant biotechnology, its definition 

of LMOs equally encompasses animals. The protocol adopts a precautionary approach; if a potential but not 

yet scientifically proven risk might exist, that potential risk may be used as a 

reason to limit the importation or use 

of an LMO. There are 157 parties to 

the Cartagena Protocol, including most 

European countries and China.3 The 

United States and Australia are not 

parties. 

Conclusions

Decisions about the development 

and use of animal biotechnology can be 

based on multiple factors. Knowledge 

of the science of animal biotechnology 

is needed to understand exactly what 

animal biotechnology involves and to 

appreciate its possible areas of applicability. Philosophical reflections on 

the moral significance of animals can 

inform the way applications of genetic 

engineering are evaluated, with respect 

both to their impact on animals and to 

the way that attempts to modify and 

control animals are viewed from an ethical perspective. A review of religious 

traditions of animal use highlights 

specific applications of biotechnology 

that may arouse sensitivities among 

adherents of those traditions. Social science research on the public’s attitudes 

toward animal biotechnology illuminates the way that philosophical or 

religious attitudes toward animals and 

biotechnology may be reflected broadly 

throughout the public. This kind of 

research can be used in making inferences about those applications of biotechnology that are most likely to spark 

opposition or consumer resistance. 

When science, ethics, religion, and 

social science are viewed concurrently 

in light of previous attempts to regulate 

animal biotechnology, it becomes apparent that society is struggling to develop public policies that appropriately 

reflect the diverse set of considerations 

that bear on applications of animal biotechnology in agriculture and the food 

system.

This review paper does not prescribe rules or principles that should 

be applied in making decisions about 

animal biotechnology. Its purpose has 

been to highlight some of the considerations that might be taken into account 

when decisions are made about genetic 

engineering or cloning of agricultural 

or food animals. No precise method 

for drawing simultaneously on science, 

ethics, religious tradition, public opinion, and legal practice has been specified. There have been relatively few 

formal efforts to bring these domains 

of human practice into dialogue for 

animal biotechnology. It is the authors’ 

belief that decision making will be improved if more frequent and sustained 

efforts to consider and reflect the full 

range of ideas represented in this paper 

are undertaken in the future. 

Glossary

Bioreactors. Animals used to produce 

pharmaceuticals or commercial 

products such as silk, usually by the 

mammary gland.

Blastomere nuclear transfer cloning. 

A cloning method using the nucleus from a cell from embryos at the 

blastocyst or earlier stage of 

development.

3 For a list of the status of the ratifying Parties, see 

The Convention on Biological Diversity, Parties to 

the Convention on Biological Diversity, Cartagena 

Protocol on Biosafety, http://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml.
14 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Cytoplasmic factors. Factors in that 

portion of a cell outside the nucleus.

Full sibs. Offspring from mating between the same sire and dam.

Gene knockouts. Individuals in which a 

gene has been rendered nonfunctional.

Oöcytes. Unfertilized eggs ovulated 

from ovarian follicles.

Quantitative trait loci. Regions of a 

chromosome with a genetic marker 

associated with a desired production 

trait (e.g., milk yield).

Recombinant bovine somatotropin. A 

hormone produced by microorganisms such as bacteria or yeast into 

which the gene for bovine somatotropin or growth hormone has been 

introduced.

Single nucleotide polymorphism. 

Variation in one or more nucleotides 

at a specific region of DNA; these 

may be associated with genes for 

differences in appearance or performance characteristics of an individual.

Somatic cell. A cell of an organ or tissue of the body that is not a gamete, 

i.e., sperm or oöcyte, or precursor 

cell of a gamete.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer. 

Cloning by using the nucleus taken 

from a fetus or an animal post-birth.

Sugar moieties. Sugars such as glucose 

and galactose attached to a protein 

that in some instances are required 

for biological activity.

Totipotent. A nucleus with genes capable of encoding for a fully developed offspring when transferred into 

an enucleated oöcyte. 

Literature Cited

Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology 

Commission (AEBC). 2002. Animals and 

Biotechnology. A Report by the AEBC, 

www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/animals_and_

biotechnology_report.pdf (25 January 

2010)

Allan, M. F., R. M. Thallman, R. A. Cushman, S. 

E. Echternkamp, S. N. White, L. A. Kuehn, 

E. Casas, and T. P. Smith. 2007. Association of a single nucleotide polymorphism in 

SPP1 with growth traits and twinning in a 

cattle population selected for twinning rate. 

J Anim Sci 85:341–347.

Allum, N., P. Sturgis, D. Tabourazi, and I. Brunton-Smith. 2008. Science knowledge and 

attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. 

Public Understand Sci 17(1):35–54.

Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 2006. Animal 

Welfare Act as Amended (7 USC, 2131-

2159), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/

cgi-bin/usc.cgi? ACTION=BROWSE& 

TITLE=7USCC54 (25 January 2010)

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2000, http://

www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocolen.pdf (25 January 2010) 

Church of Scotland. 2002. “Is It Right to Clone 

Animals?” Society, Religion and Technology Project, http://www.srtp.org.uk/ancloni5a.pdf (25 January 2010)

Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2003. Principles for the Risk Analysis of Food Derived 

from Modern Biotechnology, CAC/GL 

44-2003, http://www.codexalimentarius.net/

download/standards/10007/CXG_044e.pdf 

(25 January 2010)

Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2007. “Proposed Draft Guideline for the Conduct of 

Food Safety, Assessment of Foods Derived 

From Recombinant-DNA Animals.” Part of 

the Report of the Seventh Session of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force 

on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, November 24–28, 2007, www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/693/al31_34e.

pdf (3 November 2008) 

Colman, A. 1996. Production of proteins in the 

milk of transgenic livestock: Problems, 

solutions, and successes. Am J Clin Nutr

63:639S–645S.

Congressional Record. 1991. 102nd Congress, 

First Session, Vol. 137, pt. E1295. 

Connor, J. D., M. Boucher, and J. Li. 2006. 

“China’s Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology.” The Metropolitan Corporate 

Counsel, p. 67, December. 

Coordinated Framework for Regulation of 

Biotechnology. 1986. Fed Reg 51:23302–

23350, http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/CoordinatedFrameworkForRegulationOfBiotechnology1986.pdf (25 January 2010) 

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2004. Animal Organ Donors: 

Human Health Applications. CAST Issue 

Paper 26. CAST, Ames, Iowa.

Crawford, M. 1987. Religious groups join animal patent battle. Science 237:480–481.

Crawford, S. C. 2003. Hindu Bioethics for the 

Twenty-first Century. State University of 

New York Press, Albany.

Cummins, J. M. 2001. Cytoplasmic inheritance 

and its implications for animal biotechnology. Theriogenology 55:1381–1399.

Decima Research. 2004. Public Opinion 

Research into Biotechnology Issues: Canada–U.S. Tracking Survey. Report to the 

Biotechnology Assistant Deputy Minister 

Coordinating Committee (BACC). Decima 

Research, Government of Canada, Ottawa.

Directive of the European Parliament and of the 

Council. 2001. Directive 2001/18/EC of the 

European Parliament and of the Council of 

12 March 2001 “on the deliberate release 

into the environment of genetically modified 

organisms,” repealing Council Directive 

90/220/EEC, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biotechnology/legislation.htm (23 

February 2010) 

Döring, O. 2004. Chinese researchers promote 

biomedical regulations: What are the 

motives of the biopolitical dawn in China 

and where are they heading? Kennedy Inst 

Ethics J 14(1):39–46.

Draghia-Akli, R., P. B. Malone, L. A. Hill, K. M. 

Ellis, R. J. Schwartz, and J. L.Nordstrom. 

2002. Enhanced animal growth via ligandregulated GHRH mygenic-injectable vectors. Fed Am Soc Exp Biol J 16:426–428.

Einsiedel, E. F. 2000. Cloning and its discontents: Canadian perspectives. Nature 

Biotechnol 18(9):943–944.

Epstein, R. 1998. “Buddhism and Biotechnology,” http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/Buddhism%20and%20Biotechnology.

htm (25 January 2010)

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). 2006. 

U.S. Code, vol. 21, sec. 321, http://www.

fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/

FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDC

Act/FDCActChaptersIandIIShortTitleandDefinitions/ucm086297.htm (23 February 

2010)

Frewer, L. J. and R. Shepherd. 1995. Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with 

different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived 

need for regulation of the technology. Ag 

Human Values 12(2):48–57.

Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 1996. 

The influence of realistic product exposure 

on attitudes towards genetic engineering in 

food. Food Qual Pref 7(1):61–67.

Gaskell, G. 2000. Agricultural biotechnology 

and public attitudes in the European Union. 

AgBioForum 3:2–3. 

Gaskell, G., M. W. Bauer, J. Durant, and N. C. 

Allum. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception 

of genetically modified foods in Europe and 

the U.S. Science 285:384–387.

Gaskell, G., N. Allum, M. Bauer, J. Jackson, S. 

Howard, and N. Lindsey. 2003. Climate 

change for biotechnology? UK public opinion 1991–2002. AgBioForum 6(1–2):55–67.

Gaskell, G., N. C. Allum, W. Wagner, N. 

Kronberger, H. Torgersen, J. Hampel, 

and J. Bardes. 2004. GM foods and the 

misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal

24(1):185–194.

Gaskell, G., A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, C. Corchero, C. Fischler, J. Hampel, J. Jackson, N. 

Kronberger, N. Mejlgaard, G. Revuelta, C. 

Schreiner, S. Stares, H. Torgersen, and W. 

Wagner. 2006. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. Eurobarometer 64:3, http://www.ec.europa.eu/

research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_

final_report-may2006_en.pdf (25 January 

2010`) 

Gottlieb, S. and M. B. Wheeler. 2008. Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health: 

Compelling Benefits for Health Care, 

Nutrition, the Environment, and Animal 

Welfare. Biotechnology Industry Organization, Washington, D.C., http://www.aei.org/

docLib/20080619_GEAnimalBenefitsReport.pdf (25 January 2010)

Hallman, W., A. Adelaja, B. Schilling, and J. T. 

Lang. 2002. Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: Americans Know Not 

What They Eat. Rutgers University Food 

Policy Institute, New Brunswick, New 

Jersey.

Hallman, W., C. Hebden, A. Aquino, C. Cuite, 

and J. Lang. 2003. Public Perceptions of 

Genetically Modified Foods: A National 
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15

Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. 

Report, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Hoban, T. 2004. Public Attitudes towards 

Agricultural Biotechnology. ESA Working 

Paper No. 04–09. Agricultural and Development Economics Division, FAO. May.

Hornig Priest, S., H. Bonfadelli, and M. Rusanen. 2003. The “trust gap” hypothesis: 

Predicting support for biotechnology across 

national cultures as a function of trust in 

actors. Risk Anal 23(4):751–766.

International Dairy Foods v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 

67 (2d Cir. 1996), http://cases.justia.com/

us-court-of-appeals/F3/92/67/517425/ (23 

February 2010)

International Food Information Council (IFIC). 

2007. Food Biotechnology: A Study of U.S. 

Consumer Attitudinal Trends, 2007 Report, 

http://www.ific.org/research/07biotechres.

cfm (13 July 2009)

Irradiation in the Production, Processing 

and Handling of Food. 2007. Fed Reg 

72:16291.

Jaenisch, R. and I. Wilmut. 2001. Developmental biology. Don’t clone humans! Science

291:2552.

Jasanoff, S. 2007. Making order: Law and 

science in action. Pp. 761–786. In E. J. 

Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and 

J. Wajcman (eds.). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3rd ed. MIT 

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Khan, A. S., M. L. Fiorotto, L. A. Hill, P. B. 

Malone, K. K. Cummings, D. Parghi, R. 

J. Schwartz, R. G. Smith, and R. DraghiaAkli. 2002. Maternal GHRH plasmid administration changes pituitary cell lineage 

and improves progeny growth of pigs. 

Endocrinology 143:3561–3567.

King, A. H., Z. Jiang, J. P. Gibson, C. S. Haley, 

and A. L. Archibald. 2003. Mapping quantitative trait loci affecting female reproductive traits on porcine chromosome 8. Biol 

Reprod 68:2172–2179. 

Knight, A. 2007. Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on 

support for animal and plant biotechnology 

applications. Risk Anal 27(6):1553–1563.

Lai, L., D. Kolber-Simonds, K. W. Park, H. T. 

Cheong, J. L. Greenstein, G. S. Im, M. 

Samuel, A. Bonk, A. Rieke, B. N. Day, 

C. N. Murphy, D. B Carter, R. J. Hawley, 

and R. S. Prather. 2002. Production of α-1, 

3-galactosyltransferase-knockout inbred 

miniature swine by nuclear transfer cloning. 

Science 295:1089–1092.

Lavitrano, M., M. Busnelli, M. G. Cerrito, R. 

Giovannoni, S. Manzini, and A. Vargiolu. 

2006. Sperm-mediated gene transfer. Reprod Fertil Develop 18:19–23. 

Leggett, K. 2003. China has tightened genetics regulation—Rules ban human cloning. 

Moves could quiet critics of freewheeling 

research. Asian Wall St J October 13:A1.

Li, L. 2004. Beijing suspends draft animal welfare rule. China Daily, May 17, http://www.

chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/17/

content_331357.htm (10 November 2008)

Marris, C., B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. 

Weldon. 2001. Public Perceptions of 

Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: 

Final Report of the PABE Research Project. 

University of Lancaster, Lancaster, U.K.

McCreath, K. J., J. Howcroft, K. H. S. Campbell, 

A. Colman, A. E. Schnieke, and A. J. Kind. 

2000. Production of gene-targeted sheep by 

nuclear transfer from cultured somatic cells. 

Nature 405:1066–1069.

Mirza, B. 2004. Islamic perspectives on biotechnology. P. 108. In M.C. Brannigan (ed.). 

Cross-Cultural Biotechnology. Rowman 

and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.

Murray, J. D. and E. A. Maga. 1999. Changing 

the composition and properties of milk. Pp. 

193–208. In J. D. Murray, G. B. Anderson, 

A. M. Oberbauer, and M. M. McGloughlin 

(eds.). Transgenic Animals in Agriculture. 

CABI International, Wallingford, U.K.

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Animal 

Biotechnology: Science-based Concerns. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council (NRC). 2004. Safety 

of Genetically Engineered Foods; Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health 

Effects. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Norman, H. D., T. J. Lawlor, J. R. Wright, and R. 

L. Powell. 2004. Performance of Holstein 

clones in the United States. J Dairy Sci

87:729–738. 

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2004. 

Issues in the Regulation of Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals, http://www.

pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.

aspx?id=17976 (10 November 2008)

Pinstrup-Andersen, P. and R. Pandya-Lorch. 

1999. Securing and sustaining adequate 

world food production for the third millennium. Pp. 27–48. In D. P. Weeks, J. B. 

Segelken, and R. W. F. Hardy (eds.). World 

Food Security and Sustainability: The 

Impacts of Biotechnology and Industrial 

Consolidation. NABC Report 11. National 

Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, 

New York.

Pitman, S. 2003. Gene identified to regulate 

milk content and yield. Food Prod Daily, 

February 21, http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Supply-Chain/Gene-identifiedto-regulate-milk-content-and-yield (25 

January 2010) 

Podger, G. 2004. European Food Safety Authority 

will focus on science. 5 EUR. AFF, http://

www.europeaninstitute.org/Winter-2004/

european-food-safety-authority-will-focuson-science.html (25 January 2010)

Pollack, A. 2007. “System to Track Cloned Animals Planned.” New York Times, December 

19.

Public Health Service (PHS). 2002. Public 

Health Service Policy on Humane Care and 

Use of Laboratory Animals, http://grants.

nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm 

(23 February 2010)

Regan, T. 2003. Animal Rights and Human 

Wrongs. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, 

Maryland. 

Reisner, A. 2000. Curiouser and curiouser: Teshuvah on genetic engineering. Conservative 

Judaism 52(3):59–72.

Rollin, B. 1989. The Unheeded Cry. Oxford 

University Press, Oxford, U.K.

Rollin, B. 1993. Animal production and the new 

social ethic for animals. Pp. 3–13. In Food 

Animal Well-Being. USDA and Purdue 

University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 

Rollin, B. 1996. The Frankenstein Syndrome. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

U.K. 

Russell, W. M. S. and L. Burch. 1959, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. 

Methuen, London, U.K.

Sandrin, M. S., H. A. Vaughan, P. L. Dabkowski, 

and I. F. C. McKenzie. 1993. Anti-pig antibodies in human serum react predominantly 

with Galα (1,3) Gal epitopes. Proc Natl 

Acad Sci USA 90:11391–11395.

Scholderer, J. and L. Frewer. 2003. The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new 

strategy. J Cons Policy 26:125–157.

Sinclair, K. D., T. G. McEvoy, E. K. Maxfield, 

C. A. Maltin, L. E. Young, I. Wilmut, P. J. 

Broadbent, and J. J. Robinson. 1999. Aberrant fetal growth and development after in 

vitro culture of sheep zygotes. J Reprod 

Fertil 116:177–186.

Sinclair, K. D., L. E. Young, I. Wilmut, and T. G. 

McEvoy. 2000. In-utero overgrowth in ruminants following embryo culture: Lessons 

from mice and a warning to men. Human 

Reprod 15:68S–86S.

Singer, P. 1993. Practical Ethics. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Thompson, P. B. 2007. Food Biotechnology 

in Ethical Perspective. 2nd ed. Springer, 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

United Methodist Church (UMC). 1992. Genetic 

Science Task Force Report to the 1992 General Conference.

United States v. An Article of Drug ... BactoUnidisk. 1969. 394 U.S. 784, http://supreme.justia.com/us/394/784/ (27 January 

2010) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. 

USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017. P. 

52, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

oce081/oce20081.pdf (25 January 2010)

U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA–

APHIS). 2009. Biotechnology Regulatory 

Services (BRS) News and Information, May 

2009, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/news_transgenic_animals.shtml (23 

February 2010)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration–Health and 

Human Services (USFDA–HHS). 2008. 

“Use of Animal Clones and Clone Progeny 

for Human Food and Animal Feed,” January 

15, 2008, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/

AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/

UCM052469.pdf (23 February 2010)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration–Health and 

Human Services (USFDA–HHS). 2009. 

“Guidance for Industry: Regulation of 

Genetically Engineered Animals Containing 

Heritable rDNA Constructs.” January 15, 

2009. Federal Register, http://www.fda.gov/

downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf (23 February 2010)
16 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

CAST Member Societies

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF VETERINARY AND COMPARATIVE TOXICOLOGY/ AMERICAN BOARD OF VETERINARY TOXICOLOGY n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AVIAN PATHOLOGISTS n

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PESTICIDE SAFETY EDUCATORS n AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND RESOURCES, AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT 

COMMITTEE n AMERICAN DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n AMERICAN FORAGE AND GRASSLAND COUNCIL n AMERICAN MEAT SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF 

AGRONOMY n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS n AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION n AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT SOCIETY n COUNCIL OF ENTOMOLOGY DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATORS n NORTH CENTRAL WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n SOCIETY FOR IN VITRO BIOLOGY n SOCIETY OF NEMATOLOGISTS n WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA n WESTERN SOCIETY OF WEED SCIENCE

The mission of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) is to assemble, interpret, and communicate credible science-based information 

regionally, nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private sector, and the public. CAST is a nonprofit organization composed of scientific societies and many individual, student, company, nonprofit, and associate society members. CAST’s Board is composed of representatives of the scientific societies, commercial companies, nonprofit or trade organizations, and individual members, and an Executive Committee. CAST was established in 1972 as a result of a 

meeting sponsored in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. ISSN 1070-0021

Additional copies of this issue paper are available from CAST. Linda M. Chimenti, Director of Council Operations. World WideWeb: http://www.cast-science.org.

Citation: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2010. Ethical Implications of Animal Biotechnology: Considerations for Animal Welfare 

Decision Making. Issue Paper No. 46. CAST, Ames, Iowa. 

Van Kleef, E., J. R. Houghton, A. Krystallis, U. Pfenning, G. Rowe, H. Van Dijk, 

I. A. Van der Lans, and L. J. Frewer. 

2007. Consumer evaluations of food risk 

management quality in Europe. Risk Anal 

27(6):1565–1580.

Verhoog, H. 2003. Naturalness and the genetic 

modification of animals. Trends Biotechnol 

21(7):294–297.

Wang, Y. 2007. Implementation and enforcement of biosafety regulations in China: The 

case of agricultural genetically modified 

organisms (agro-GMOs). Int J Biotechnol 

9(6):569–585.

Wilmut, I., L. Young, and K. H. Campbell. 

1998. Embryonic and somatic cell cloning. 

Reprod Fertil Devel 10:639–643.

Yang, X. 2004. An embryonic nation. Nature

428:210–212.

Young, L. E. and H. R. Fairburn. 2000. Improving the safety of embryo technologies: Possible role of genomic imprinting. Theriogenology 53:627–648.

Young, L. E., K. D. Sinclair, and I. Wilmut. 

1998. Large offspring syndrome in cattle 

and sheep. Rev Reprod 3:155–163.

Zika, E., I. Papatryfon, O. Wolf, M. GomezBarbero, A. J. Steine, and A-K Bock. 

2007. Consequences, Opportunities and 

Challenges of Modern Biotechnology for 

Europe. Joint Research Centre, Institute of 

Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission, http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.

eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=1470 (27 

January 2010)
236

4. A. World and U.S. population growth: How can we feed 

everyone?

Jeff Simmons, Elanco Animal Health

Presented by William Weldon
Why agriculture needs technology to help meet a growing demand 

for safe, nutritious and affordable food

Technology’s Role in the 21st Century:

Jeff Simmons, Elanco Animal Health

Presented by Bill Weldon at CAST Symposium, June 2010

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

Executive Summary

• The U.N. projects world population will reach 9+ billion 

by mid-century and has called for a 100 percent increase 

in world food production by 2050. According to the U.N., 

this doubled food requirement must come from virtually 

the same land area as today.

• The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) further 

states that 70 percent of this additional food supply must 

come from the use of efficiency-enhancing technologies.

• Driven by food production efficiency, agriculture 

can achieve the “ultimate win” for consumers 

worldwide—affordability, supply, food safety, 

sustainability and ample supplies of grain for biofuels. 

Three key concepts—collaboration, choice and 

technology—emerge as the pathway to this success.

100%

more food,

1 and

 In 50 years,

 the world population

will require

70%

of this food must come from

eciency-improving technology2

▲▲

Key Data

Introduction

Today there are nearly 1 billion hungry people around the globe. Yet 

in only 50 years, our growing global population will require an estimated 100 percent more food than we produce today. Unfortunately, 

we will certainly not have 100 percent more high-quality land available to grow twice the amount of grain or two times more livestock. 

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that 

added farmland will help produce only 20 percent of the additional 

food our planet will need in 2050, and 10 percent will come from 

increased cropping intensity. Accordingly, the FAO concludes that 70 

percent of the world’s additional food needs can be produced only 

with new and existing agricultural technologies.

The consequences of failing to use these science-based technologies 

and innovations will be disastrous. Food producers in industrialized 

and developing nations alike require technology to ensure a sustainable supply of safe, nutritious and affordable grains and animal 

protein to satisfy a rapidly growing demand. For this reason, and 

many others, we all share in the responsibility to ensure that new 

agricultural technologies—as well as those proven safe and effective 

over decades—continue to be available.
Will global population growth outpace our ability 

to meet the demand for food?

Some argue it already has. In December 2008, an estimated 963 

million people around the world didn’t get enough to eat.3

 About 42 

percent of these chronically hungry people live in two of the world’s 

most populous developing nations: India and China.4

 Because of 

malnutrition, one in four children in second- and third-world 

nations (W2 and W3) is underweight for his or her age.5

This is an unacceptable situation today and will require a 

new approach to food production to avert an even worse 

scenario in the coming decades. 

That’s because world food demand is expected to increase 

100 percent by 2050.1 Consequently, the U.N. FAO projects 

that global production of meat and dairy protein will almost 

double by 2050.6

 This increased global demand will be driven by 

a steady increase in population growth from today’s 6.7 billion to 

9+ billion at the midpoint of the 21st century.7

This rise in population will be characterized by a growth in affluence, primarily in W2 nations, that will create the largest increase in 

global meat and milk consumption in history. Much of this increase 

parallels a rise in living standards in developing nations where more 

people can afford to replace low-cost grains in their daily diet with 

higher-cost sources of protein. China is a prime example of this trend. 

Compared to other W2 nations such as India, China has made more 

progress in reducing hunger among its growing population. In 1985, 

meat consumption in China was roughly 44 pounds per person per 

year. By 2000, this had increased to 90 pounds per person annually, 

a figure that’s projected to more than double again by 2030.8

Land: the one resource we can never produce more of

Coinciding with increases in worldwide demand for animal protein 

is the reality of growing constraints on natural resources, with land 

a key limiting factor.13 Based on U.N. FAO projections,2

 13 percent 

more land in developing countries will be converted to agricultural 

use over the next 30 years. On a global basis, this represents a net 

increase in available cropland of only 1 percent—from the 39 percent 

of global land area used in 2008 to a total of 40 percent. This land 

expansion will account for only 20 percent of future increases in food 

production. According to the U.N., 70 percent of the rest must come 

from increased use of new and current yield-enhancing technologies. 

About 10 percent will come from increased cropping intensity (harvesting more crops per year from every acre).2

 

With respect to increasing output, there is good news. During the last 

half of the 20th century, agricultural productivity in many W1 nations 

expanded at a phenomenal rate. For instance, the average yield of corn 

in the U.S. rose from 39 to 153 bushels per acre14 (Figure 1). In addition, 

2

W1

W3

W2

Feeding Our 3 “Worlds”9

Economists classify our world into three 

socioeconomic groups:

First World (W1): Affluent, industrialized nations and 

regions including the United States, Western Europe, 

Japan, South Korea and Australia. 

Total estimated population, 

2008: < 1 billion.

Second World (W2): Nations where 

the key challenge is balancing 

resources and needs; these include 

China, India, Eastern Europe and 

Latin America.

Total estimated population, 

2008: 3-4 billion. 

Third World (W3): Nations that are 

consistently in dire straits, such as Bangladesh, 

Haiti and most of Africa. 

Total estimated population, 2008: 1-2 billion.

Population estimates used for this graphic: 

W1 = 0.9B, W2 = 3.8B and W3 = 1.8B
A Growing Consensus:

The growing challenge of feeding the world

What a few experts have to say: 

“Science and technology must spearhead agricultural 

production in the next 30 years at a pace faster 

than the Green Revolution did during the past three 

decades.”

– Dr. Jacques Diouf, Director-General, Food and 

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations10

“Policy responses to protect the poor from food price 

rises are urgent and need to be designed in a way 

that is conducive to stimulating greater agricultural 

production in the long run.”

– Dan Leipziger, World Bank Group Vice President for 

Poverty Reduction and Economic Management11

“Backyard vegetable gardens are fine. So are 

organics...But solutions to the global food crisis will 

come from big business, genetically engineered crops 

and large-scale farms.”

– Jason Clay, World Wildlife Fund12

a comparison of U.S. farm 

output for 1948-1994 showed 

substantial productivity 

increases for all livestock and 

grain products, including an 

88 percent increase in meat 

production and a 411 percent 

increase in the output of eggs 

and poultry. Combined, these 

improvements resulted in a 

145 percent increase in total 

factor productivity (TFP)* for 

the U.S. agriculture industry 

(Figure 2).15

This should give us ample reason to believe we can meet the world’s 

growing need for food. Why? Because according to the USDA 

Economic Research Service, the development of new agricultural 

technologies—including advances in genetics, nutrition, disease and 

pest control and livestock management—was an important factor 

in these 20th-century productivity improvements.14,15 Refining these 

technologies, and discovering new ones, will be critical to our success 

in expanding on productivity improvements in this century. 

With respect to optimizing land use for agriculture in the coming 

decades, however, the news is not so encouraging. The reasons for 

this are many and complex, but two of them are of paramount importance. First is the growing need to balance the use of agricultural land 

with the need to minimize the impact of 

agriculture on the global environment—

particularly with regard to greenhouse 

gas emissions, soil degradation and the 

protection of already dwindling water 

supplies. Few would argue against the 

imperative to employ only those agricultural technologies that have a neutral or 

positive impact on our environment. To 

do otherwise is to sacrifice our long-term 

survival in favor of short-term gains.

The second reason involves the conflicting 

pressure to reallocate the use of current 

cropland from growing food to producing 

grains for biofuels (see sidebar on page 4). 

Successfully responding to both these 

additional challenges—protecting the 

environment and balancing the world’s 

need for energy and food—will require a complex and multifaceted 

approach. For now, regardless of how we respond to these challenges, 

both will inevitably affect the cost of food in W1, W2 and W3 nations alike.

3

0

50

100

150

200

1950 2000

39

153

Bu/acre

{ Yield increased 292%

in only 50 years

Figure 1

U.S. Corn Yield per Acre: 1950-2000

(USDA Economic Research Service Data)

The USDA calls new technologies a “primary factor” 

in improvements in agricultural productivity, such as 

a 292 percent increase in U.S. corn yields from 1950 

to 2000.14

Figure 2

U.S. Farm Output & Productivity: 1948-1994

(USDA Economic Research Service Data)

With 1994 farm output for livestock and grain products more than doubling the baseline output 

of 1948, total factor productivity (TFP) for U.S. agriculture during the last half of the 20th century 

improved by nearly 150 percent. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

this difference in TFP resulted from factors including changes in technology, efficiency and scale of 

production.15

Dairy Products Meat

Change in Farm Output (1948 = 100)

Poultry & Eggs All Livestock 

Products

All Crops Total Factor

 Productivity*

1948

132

188

511

213

250 245

1994

0

100

200

300

400

500

600 Changes in technology helped to more 

than double output of livestock products 

and crops during the second half 

of the last century

Increases in output 

resulted in a 

145 percent increase in 

TFP for U.S. agriculture

*Overall rate of productivity is most commonly expressed as total factor productivity (TFP), a ratio of outputs to inputs (both measured 

as an index). TFP captures the growth in outputs not accounted for by the growth in production inputs. 
Grain for Food or Grain for Fuel:

Can we have both?

The USDA projects that about one-third of the 2009 U.S. 

corn crop will be converted into ethanol.16 Still, this new 

technology for revolutionizing energy production has also 

produced worldwide debate about the trade-off s in using 

cropland to produce fuel rather than food.

Consider: when U.S. ethanol production began ramping up 

in 2005, corn was less than $2/bushel. Within two years, 

this had doubled to $4 and a year later peaked at nearly 

$8/ bushel, resulting in signifi cant pressure on the food 

industry.

Can we raise enough food to feed the world while helping 

the U.S. and other nations achieve a higher level of energy 

independence? If history is any guide, the answer is yes, 

but only as long as we continue to invest in the technology 

necessary to make ethanol production, grain production 

and food production even more effi cient.

4

The consumer perspective

When it comes to the global food supply, what does the average 

person think about? Does he or she worry daily about food safety 

and agricultural technologies and methods? experts continue to 

debate the answer to this question. 

on the one hand, food contamination scares — such as those involving milk from china, peppers from Mexico, beef from some 

u.s. meat processors and peanut products from georgia — have 

created understandable consumer concern about the safety of the 

world’s food supply. 

on the other hand, a 2008 survey by the International Food Information council revealed that when consumers are asked about specifi c 

food concerns, half indeed cited “disease and contamination” at 

the top of the list. yet only 7 percent reported that they worry about 

agricultural production methods, and 1 percent cited biotechnology 

as a top-of-mind concern (Figure 3).17

Research also shows that most people are not greatly concerned about 

food safety, nor about modern food production technologies. u.s. 

and international consumer research, involving a total of 45 focus 

groups conducted in 2001, 2004 and 200818 — and including a quantitative survey of 741 Americans taken in 2008 — revealed that most 

consumers (nearly 70 percent in 2008) assume the meat and poultry 

they buy is safe. The research also showed that consumers care little 

about the origin of meat they purchase. And only 17 percent of the 

consumers surveyed in 2008 expressed a strong interest in knowing 

about modern food animal production, while nearly 60 percent had 

little or no interest, preferring instead to trust the food supply chain 

to ensure the food they consume is safe.

Whom do consumers trust most to ensure science-based food safety? 

Perhaps not surprisingly, it’s the food producers — those who rely on 

modern technologies to help them grow food safely and effi ciently. 

Interestingly, consumers trust producers to help maintain food safety 

to a much greater degree than they trust advocacy groups (Figure 4). 

Figure 3

Consumer Concerns Regarding Food Safety

Though research shows most consumers aren’t overly concerned about food safety, when asked to 

share potential worries, 50 percent cite disease and contamination. In contrast, only 1 percent cite 

biotechnology as a food safety concern.17

Disease/Contamination Handling/Preparation Food Sources Agricultural Production Biotechnology

% of Consumers Citing This Concern

50

29

13

7

1 0

10

20

30

40

50

FARmInG In 2050

WILL OCCUPy OnLy

AbOUT 1 PERCEnT mORE 

LAnD ThAn IS USED

In 2008. 

– BASED ON U.N. FAO PROJECTIONS
Lessons from the European Center 

of Competitive Excellence

In 2003, a think tank called the Center of Competitive 

Excellence was assembled to assess a number of challenges. 

One of these was to evaluate the European meat industry 

and develop strategies for enhancing its competitive 

position across Europe and in the global marketplace. 

Surveys and panel discussions by highly respected 

agricultural experts, veterinarians and food producers from 

across Europe were conducted by the Center. Three key 

insights emerged: 25 

1. It’s crucial to have a credible, authoritative 

regulatory body.

 The model for this is the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), a regulatory body that, despite 

some criticism, remains a highly respected authority by 

consumers in the U.S. and around the world. A central 

authority such as the FDA helps maintain consumer 

confidence—something Europeans recognized the 

need for as they addressed food contamination and 

animal disease issues. Ultimately, they created the 

centralized Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and the 

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

2. Allow use of approved technologies and 

modern farming techniques to continue.

 As an example, U.K. farmers learned in the 1990s that 

rewriting laws to appease the political demands of a 

vocal minority is a recipe for economic disaster. A decade 

after yielding to pressures to ban (or not approve) 

growth enhancers, biotech products, GMOs and certain 

production practices, the U.K. has transformed from 

a key global leader and competitor to a high-cost, 

low-productivity domestic producer that now relies on 

poultry and beef imports to meet consumer demand.

3. Food producers should avoid “differentiating 

on the negative.”

 Labeling food products with claims such as NO additives, 

NO this, NO that, etc., results in a costly contest among 

manufacturers to “out- NO” each other while only 

confusing consumers who neither understand, desire, 

nor prefer these types of foods. Further, this practice 

can create an unfounded fear among consumers that 

products without such labels are less safe when, in fact, 

they can be even safer to consume. In any case, it’s the 

consumer who should make the final decision about 

which food products to purchase.

5

Protecting the confidence and trust consumers place in the food 

supply chain is critical. Although consumer confidence remains relatively strong, research shows it is decreasing slightly.17 High-profile 

food recalls almost certainly helped to erode this confidence. But is 

the emergence of genetically modified (GM) foods also to blame? 

Probably not.

Research reveals that, unprompted, consumers do not put GM 

products high on their list of food worries.19 Moreover, in the EU —

an area of the world that typically champions organic farming—few 

consumers actually avoid GM foods when shopping. In fact, regardless of what consumers say about GM foods in opinion polls, the vast 

majority of them readily buy the few available GM foods without 

apparent hesitation.19 It should be noted, however, that global demand 

for organic products continues to grow. Worldwide sales of organic 

products doubled from 2000 to 2006, with the EU emerging as one of 

the top three import markets for organic goods.20

Consumers want high-quality, affordable food

So if most consumers trust their food to be safe and accept GM foods 

with little concern, what do they worry about? When asked openended questions about what they want most in their food, consumers 

consistently say they want it to be high-quality and affordable. As one 

example, recent polling in the U.S., U.K., Germany, Argentina and 

China found that taste, quality and price were the top considerations 

when choosing food products.21

Of these, affordability continues to move to the forefront as the global 

economy remains in a state of heightened volatility. According to an 

October 2008 survey by the Center for Food Integrity, 60 percent of 

respondents are more concerned about food prices than they were 

just one year ago22 

—“the highest level of concern...since World 

War II” according to the Center’s CEO, Charlie Arnot.

Figure 4

Whom Do Consumers Trust to Ensure Food Safety?

(1 = Trust Least, 10 = Trust Most)

With regard to ensuring food safety, consumers put the most trust in farmers and food producers.22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.83

5.07

5.08

5.33

5.66

5.96

6.56

Advocacy Groups

Federal Regulatory Agencies

State Regulatory Agencies

Food Companies/Processors

Restaurants

Grocery Stores

Farmers/Producers
6

Consumers want choice

Of course, affordability matters less to some consumers, particularly 

those in affluent W1 countries where food costs account for only 10 

percent of the average income.23 This includes consumers who prefer 

foods that are produced organically, i.e., with the use of few (if any) 

modern agricultural tools and technologies. Organic food production, however, typically requires more resources and produces less

food—which currently makes it a questionable solution to meeting 

the world’s growing food supply needs. As we prepare to enter 

the second decade of the 21st century, most organic foods remain a 

high-cost luxury that three-quarters of the world’s population cannot 

afford, particularly those in developing nations where food costs 

consume 50 percent of the average income.23

Needless to say, consumers who desire organic foods—which help 

the food industry satisfy demand and capture more value—should 

have that choice. Likewise, consumers who need an abundance of 

efficiently produced, high-quality and affordable food deserve that 

choice as well. All consumer preferences can and should be protected. 

Most of all, the undernourished in developing nations who are 

improving their diets by increasing consumption of animal proteins, 

deserve the affordable foods that can be produced with carefully 

monitored, efficiency-improving agricultural technologies. 

High food prices will worsen the global food crisis

The question of how food is grown became even more relevant in 

2008, when the entire world saw pressures on food production accelerate as never before. According to the International Monetary Fund 

(IMF), world market prices for food commodities rose more than 75 

percent from early 2006 to July 2008.23 Of course, any increase in grain 

prices inevitably causes meat, egg and dairy costs to rise, because 

grain is used to feed livestock. As painful as these increases are in 

Low level of 

agreement

Medium level 

of agreement

High level of 

agreement

36

50

14

60 36

4

Low level of 

concern

Ambivalent 

level of concern

High level of 

concern

Figure 5

Consumer Agreement That Today’s 

Food Supply Is Safer Than It Was 

During Their Childhood

Figure 6

Consumer Concern

About Food Prices

Sixty-four percent of Americans believe today’s food supply is even safer than it was when they were 

young, though 60 percent express a high level of concern about food prices.22 

Recent polling in 

the U.S., U.K., Germany, 

Argentina, and China

found that taste, 

quality and price were

the top considerations

when choosing

food products.

21
7

industrialized (W1) nations, they can be devastating in poor nations 

where even modest increases in food prices can mean the difference 

between sustenance and starvation.

Josette Sheeran, head of the World Food Programme, reports that 

from 2002 to 2007 the cost of procuring basic foods for her program 

increased by 50 percent—and then by another 50 percent only one 

year later. As a consequence of these unprecedented cost increases, 

Sheeran warns that “high food prices are not only causing a humanitarian crisis but also putting at risk the development potential of 

millions of people.”24

The challenge of helping these millions of people requires us to ask 

ourselves: Can we afford not to use the technologies at our disposal 

to produce food as efficiently as possible?

Why is technology such an important key to meeting 

the global demand for food and consumer choice?

There are a wide variety of answers to this question, and here are 

three of the most important:

1. Technology enables food producers to provide more highquality grains and protein sources using fewer resources. 

 Ironically, those who believe “all-natural” farming techniques (e.g., 

pre-1950) were superior to those used today could not, in many 

ways, be more mistaken. For example, a combination of modern 

feeding practices and efficiency-enhancing feed additives enables 

today’s cattle growers to use two-thirds less land to produce a pound 

of beef as it takes to produce a pound from “all-natural” grass-fed 

cattle.26 In addition, we can now produce at least 58 percent more 

milk with 64 percent fewer cows than dairy farmers could produce 

in 1944.27 Researchers have also found that nationwide use of an 

FDA-approved swine feed additive could enable the U.S. to maintain pork production levels while raising 11 million fewer hogs. This 

would also reduce demand for cropland used to grow feed grains by 

more than 2 million acres.28 

 Similarly, for every million dairy cows managed with another widely 

used technology, the world saves 2.5 million tons of feed that would 

have required 540,000 acres of land to produce. This increase in 

efficiency saves enough electricity to power 15,000 households29 and 

can substantially lower milk prices.

 Technology has also played an important role in the poultry industry, 

which has seen a four- to six-fold increase in the slaughter weight 

of broiler chickens since 1957. Researchers attribute this increase to 

careful genetic selection and improvements in nutrition.30

“high food prices

are not only causing

a humanitarian crisis, 

but also putting at

risk the development

potential of millions

of people.”

– Josette Sheeran

World Food Programme
8

2. Technology can help keep food affordable while ensuring 

maximum consumer choice—especially in developing 

nations.

 Organic foods are a fine option for people who can afford to pay a premium for them. According to USDA researchers, these premiums can 

average 100 percent or more for vegetables,31 200 percent for chicken 

and nearly 300 percent for eggs.32 On a global scale, however, most 

consumers can’t afford to pay such premiums and instead demand 

less expensive food choices. 

It bears noting that not all organic production methods are less efficient and provide foods that invariably cost more. According to a 

U.N. FAO report, in some countries, well-designed organic systems 

can provide better yields and profits than traditional systems. In 

Madagascar, for example, farmers have increased rice yields fourfold 

by using improved organic management practices. In Bolivia, India 

and Kenya, farmers have shown that yields can be double or triple 

those obtained using traditional practices.2

 Nonetheless, the report also recognizes the need for more research to 

solve technical problems faced by organic growers, and suggests that 

organic agriculture could become a realistic alternative to traditional 

agriculture over the next 30 years, but only on a local level.2

 Still, given the magnitude of the food crisis the world faces in the 

coming decades, efforts to maximize choice and achieve high production efficiencies (and lower costs) for all foods—including organic 

products—deserve the support of all constituencies in the global 

food chain. 

3. Technology can help minimize the global environmental 

impact of increased food production. 

 Using modern production methods and technologies not only 

helps produce more high-value protein from less land, but can also 

have a net positive impact on the environment. For instance, what 

today’s beef producers call “conventional” (i.e., modern) production techniques can actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

per pound of beef by 38 percent compared with an “all-natural” 

production method26 (Figure 7).

 Moreover, technology can help significantly reduce animal waste 

production that can threaten vital water resources in developing 

nations where modern pollution-control standards and technologies are not in use. Case in point: use of an FDA-approved feed 

additive for swine can reduce manure production in pigs by 8 

percent.33 Feeding this additive to every hog harvested in the U.S. 

in 2002 would have reduced annual production of swine manure 

by more than 3.4 billion gallons28—or enough to fill about 5,600 

Olympic-size swimming pools. 

technology can 

help significantly 

reduce animal waste

production that

can threaten vital

water resources in 

developing nations

where modern 

pollution-control

standards and

technologies are

not in use.

Figure 7

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

per Lb. of Beef (excludes NOx)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Conventional 

grain-fed

6.93

7.94

11.16

Natural grain-fed

Organic grass-fed

Grain-fed cattle produce 

38% fewer greenhouse 

gas emissions than

grass-fed cattle {

Lbs. of CO2 Equivalent

Today’s conventional production methods help reduce total 

greenhouse gas emissions compared to organic methods.26
Jeff Simmons is the President of Elanco Animal Health, 

the animal health division of Eli Lilly and Company. Jeff is 

a member of the Animal Health Institute’s (AHI) Executive 

Committee and serves on the Board of Directors of both 

AHI and the International Federation for Animal Health 

(IFAH). He is also a member of the Harvard Business School’s 

Private and Public, Scientific, Academic, and Consumer Food 

Policy Group (PAPSAC) committee and the 2009 Chairman 

of the FFA Foundation Board. Jeff received a bachelor’s 

degree in Agricultural Economics and Marketing from 

Cornell University in 1989. 

9

Conclusions

1. The global food industry needs technology. 

 Without advancements in agricultural technology, humanity would 

likely not have progressed through the 20th century without major 

famines or devastating food wars. Will we be able to say the same thing 

at the end of this century, given that a food crisis is already here? 

 I believe the answer is yes, because I concur with the U.N. that 70 percent 

of this food must come from the use of new and existing technologies and 

methods. And these technologies and methods must have no negative 

impact on the environment, animal welfare or food safety.

2. Consumers deserve the widest possible variety of safe and affordable food choices. 

 In general, consumers trust food producers to keep the food supply 

safe, and they’re more concerned about food contamination than about 

technology used on the farm. Instead, one of the most pressing human 

concerns about food is affordability. 

 For this reason, consumers from all classes and geographies—from those 

who can afford organic foods to those who struggle to maintain a diet 

that sustains them—must be allowed to choose from an abundance of 

safe, nutritious and, most importantly, inexpensive food options.

3. The food production system can mitigate the food economics challenge and achieve an “ultimate win.” 

 Facing a global food crisis, the world is at risk through the midpoint of 

this century. We already see the signs: our population consumed more 

grain than we produced during seven of the last eight years.34

 The good news: an “ultimate win” is still possible. What will it look like? 

Five key achievements will mark its success:

1. Improving the affordability of food by using new and existing 

technologies and optimal productivity practices.

2. Increasing the food supply by instituting a vastly improved degree 

of cooperation across the entire global food chain.

3. Ensuring food safety with a combination of technology and highquality standards and systems, coupled with a greater measure of 

worldwide collaboration.

4. Increasing sustainability through a highly productive and efficient 

system that simultaneously protects the environment by means of 

sensitive and efficient use of natural resources.

5. Producing more biofuels to reduce dependence on fossil fuels while 

creating no negative effect on global food supplies.

 In summary, three key concepts—collaboration, choice and technology—emerge as the pathway to success. Not only will they provide 

the direction, they will be necessary requirements for an “ultimate win”

in the food economics challenge.
11

References 1

 Green, R. et al. January 2005. “Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature.” Science 307.5709: 550-555; and 

Tilman, D. et al. August 2002. “Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices.” Nature 

418.6898: 671-677.

2 “World Agriculture: toward 2015/2030.” 2002. 

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 

Rome. Accessed 12/8/08. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf>.

3

“Number of hungry people rises to 963 million.” United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 

Rome. Accessed 12/19/08. <http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/8836/icode/>.

4 “The 

State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008.” 2008. United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization, Rome.

5

“Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.” United Nations Millennium Development Goals. 

Accessed 12/8/08. <http://www.fao.org/faostat/foodsecurity/MDG/MDG-Goal1_en.pdf>.

6

 Steinfeld, H. et al. 2006. “Livestock’s Long Shadow: environmental issues and options.” Executive 

Summary, page xx. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

7 “World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision.” 2007. 

United Nations Population Division, New 

York.

8

“China’s rapidly growing meat demand: a domestic or an international challenge?” December 2005. Centre for World Food Studies. SOW-VU Brief no. 3. Accessed 12/8/08. <http://www.sow.vu.nl/pdf/

Brief%20Feed%20for%20China.pdf>.

9

 Hines, A. July-August 2008. “Consumer Trends in Three Different ‘Worlds.’” The Futurist. 10 “Climate change likely to increase risk of hunger.” August 2007. United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization Newsroom. Accessed 12/9/08. <http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/

news/2007/1000646/index.html>.

11 Viveros, A. and 

Stilwell, A. 2008. “Rising Food Prices Threaten Poverty Reduction.” Accessed 12/8/08. 

<http://web.worldbank.org>.

12 Gunther, M. 2008. “To feed the world—without destroying it

—big companies need to get smart 

about what they buy.” Accessed 12/8/08. <http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/21/news/companies/

gunther_farming.fortune/index.htm>.

13 Foley, J. et al. July 2005. “

Global Consequences of Land Use.” Science 309.5734: 570-574. 14 Fuglie, K., MacDonald, J., Ball, E. September 2007. “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture.” 

United 

States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Economic Brief No. 9. 15 Ahearn, M., Yee, J. et al. January 1998. “Agricultural Productivity in the United States.” 

United States 

Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 740. 16 Westcott, P. May 2007. “Ethanol Expansion in the United States— How Will the Agricultural Sector 

Adjust?” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. FDS-07D-01. Accessed 

12/8/08. <www.ers.usda.gov>.

17 “2008 Food Biotechnology: A 

Study of U.S. Consumer Trends.” August 2008. International Food 

Information Council. 18 Studies sponsored by the animal health industry in partnership with 

Elanco Animal Health. 2001 

study conducted by Ipsos Reid; 2004 study conducted by Forward Research; 2008 study conducted by 

Ipsos Forward Research.

19 “Most consumers are not concerned about buying 

GM foods, says new EUStudy.” October 2008. 

Farming U.K. Accessed 12/8/08. <http://www.farminguk.com/?show=newsArticle&id=8733>. 20 Willer, H., Yussefi-Menzler, M. and Sorensen, N. Eds. “The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics & Emerging Trends 2008.” Earthscan, London. 21 “Food 2020: The Consumer as CEO.” 2008. Ketchum’s Global Food & Nutrition Practice. Accessed 

12/8/08. <http://www.ketchum.com/food2020>.

22

“Consumer Trust in the Food System.” October 2008. The Center for Food Integrity. 23 Trostle, R. November 2003. “Fluctuating Food Commodity Prices—A Complex Issue With 

No Easy 

Answers.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Accessed 12/8/08. 

<www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves>.

24 Sheeran, J. 

September 2008. “High Global Food Prices—The Challenges and Opportunities.” 

International Food Policy Research Institute Annual Report Essay, Washington, D.C. 25 Simmons, J. Center of Competitive Excellence, 2000-2003 summary. 26 Avery, A. and Avery, D. 2007. “The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing 

Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production.” Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues, 

Washington, D.C. 27 Capper, J. et al. July 2008. “

Comparing the environmental impact of dairy production in 1944 to 2007.” 

Abstract. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 86, E-Suppl. 2/J. Dairy Sci. Vol. 91, E-Suppl. 1. 28 Sutton, A., Carroll, A., Anderson, D. and Elam, T. 2002. “Environmental Benefits of Paylean

® in 

Finisher Swine—an Example Based on Adoption in the United States.” Animal Sciences Swine. 

Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. 29 Capper, J., Castañeda-Gutiérrez, E., Cady, R. and Bauman, D. July 2008. “The environmental impact of 

recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 105.28: 

9668-9673. 

30

Havenstein, G., Ferket, P. and Qureshi, M. 2003. “Carcass Composition and Yield of 1957 Versus 2001 

Broilers When Fed Representative 1957 And 2001 Broiler Diets.” Poultry Sci. 82: 1509-1518. 31 Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C. and Greene, C. 2005. “Price Premiums Hold on as U.S. Organic Produce 

Market Expands.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. VGS-308-01. 32 Oberholtzer, L., Greene, C. and Lopez, E. 2006. “Organic Poultry and Eggs Capture High Price 

Premiums and Growing Share of Specialty Markets.” United States Department of Agriculture 

Economic Research Service. LDP-M-150-01. 33 DeCamp, S., Hankins, S., Carroll, A. et al. “Effects of Ractopamine and 

Level of Dietary Crude Protein 

on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Excretion from Finishing Pigs.” Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue 

University. 34 Trostle, R. July 2008. “

Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors Contributing to the Recent 

Increase in Food Commodity Prices.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research 

Service. WRS-0801.

AI10636 (06/10)
247

5. A. Agricultural Productivity Strategies for the Future: 

Addressing U.S. and Global Challenges

Gale Buchanan
Number 45

January 2010

Dedication

This Issue Paper is dedicated to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug who 

wrote the paper’s preface before his 

death September 12, 2009, and to 

his myriad accomplishments. Dr. 

Borlaug—credited by The Economist

with saving hundreds of millions 

of lives, more than any other person who has ever lived—was recipient of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, 

the Presidential Medal of Freedom, 

and the Congressional Gold Medal. 

Often called the “Father of the Green 

Revolution” for his pioneering work 

developing high-yielding wheats for 

areas with limited cultivated land and 

increasing population, Dr. Borlaug 

was a supporter and promoter of 

CAST since its inception. 

This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Grant No. 2009-

38902-20041, NIFA Grant No. 2008-38902-19327, and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Agreement No. 59-0202-7-144. Any opinions, findings, 

conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USDA, NIFA, or ARS.

West view of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol.)

Agricultural Productivity Strategies

for the Future:

Addressing U.S. and Global Challenges

Preface

By Dr. Norman E. Borlaug

Agricultural policy has played a 

key role in my career and will always be near and dear to my heart. 

I was pleased to be a featured speaker 

at a CAST–Industry meeting in 1973, 

and I was honored when CAST distributed those remarks as its first publication (CAST Paper No. 1, Agricultural 

Science and the Public, 1973). As I said 

in 1973: “CAST has both a tremendous 

responsibility and opportunity to present unbiased, scientific data so that wise 

policy and legislation will be enacted. I 

have faith that the correct decisions will 

be made if the facts are made known to 

the general public and to national and 

state legislative leaders” (Borlaug 2009).

Although modes of communication have changed in the 37 years since 

CAST was organized, agricultural policy 

still plays the key role in determining 

outcomes. Unfortunately, agricultural 

science—like many other areas of human endeavor—is subject to changing 
2 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

CAST Issue Paper 45 Task Force Members

Authors

Reviewers

CAST Liaison

Gale Buchanan (Chair), College 

of Agricultural and Environmental 

Sciences, The University of Georgia, 

Tifton Campus

Robert W. Herdt, Department of 

Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, 

New York

Luther G. Tweeten, Department of 

Agricultural, Environmental, and 

Development Economics, The 

Ohio State University, Columbus

the future. I am pleased that CAST has 

prepared this update on agricultural science and the public. 

Abstract

This Issue Paper—dedicated to Dr. 

Norman E. Borlaug for his countless 

contributions to agricultural science, 

commitment to feeding the world, and 

support of CAST—has been prepared as 

an update of Agricultural Science and 

the Public, CAST Paper No. 1 written 

by Dr. Borlaug in 1973. The current paper is a forthright appraisal of contemporary and future challenges facing U.S. 

and world agriculture. 

The authors address several key 

issues: Correcting pathologies in the 

broader U.S. economy that will allow 

American agriculture to become less dependent on domestic markets and take 

greater advantage of global markets; 

meeting developed countries’ increased 

demands on agriculture for fuel and 

ecosystem services; further increasing 

production per unit of land, water, and 

nutrient resources; dealing with global population growth; and serving the 

increased food demands in developing 

countries. The convergence of so many 

challenges at one time is unprecedented.

Increasing the productivity of resources available to agriculture is 

critical. Enhanced efficiency can be 

achieved only through research focused 

on sustainable agricultural productivity. 

Agriculture can provide the food we 

eat, the feed for our livestock and companion animals, fiber for our clothes 

and homes, “flowers” for the environment, and the fuel we need—if countries develop the needed information, 

knowledge, and technology. The public 

will have to actively support political 

action, particularly on such broad issues 

as global climate change, regulations 

on the welfare of animals in agriculture, 

natural resources, and investments in 

agricultural research and education.

The authors are most concerned 

about the apparent lack of commitment 

by the United States and other countries to make the research and education expenditures needed to address the 

problems affecting our survival on this 

planet. Complacency is unwarranted 

given the many warning signs of tighter 

future agricultural supply–demand balance, rising real food prices, and the increasing role of agricultural commodities in meeting energy needs. 

The interrelations between U.S. and 

global agriculture are large, and the authors discuss four places in the world 

that are particularly relevant to agricultural productivity considerations for 

the twenty-first century: China, India, 

Brazil, and sub-Saharan Africa. Future 

agricultural policy for all nations must 

include a strong commitment to science if nations are to meet the coming challenges successfully. The paper 

concludes with an Appendix of promising scientific approaches that could 

improve agricultural productivity and 

help to bring about the “Next Green 

Revolution.” 

Norman E. Borlaug, Professor 

Emeritus, Texas A&M University, 

College Station (Deceased September 12, 2009)

Charles F. Conner, National Council 

of Farmer Cooperatives, Washington, 

D.C.

Charles E. Hess, Department of Plant 

Science, University of California, Davis

Per Pinstrup-Andersen, College of 

Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Henry L. Shands, Fort Collins, 

Colorado

fashions and fads, generated from both 

within the scientific community and 

imposed on it by external forces, especially the politically induced ones and 

activist organizations. Increasingly, I 

fear, too much of international and national research budgets is being directed 

toward “development bandwagons” that 

will not solve Third World food production problems, which scientists are illequipped to solve.

I have worked with dozens of governments in different parts of world 

trying to serve as the link between 

scientists and their own policymakers. 

You have to be able to communicate. 

Research information must be applied 

in order to meet human needs.

We made great strides in the first 

Green Revolution by bringing improved 

agricultural techniques, seeds, and technology to poor underdeveloped and 

developing countries. But in the next 

50 years we are going to have to produce more food than we have in the last 

10,000 years, and that is a daunting task. 

I therefore have called for a “Second 

Green Revolution” (Borlaug 2002).

Now, more than ever, it is important 

for the general public to know the facts 

underlying the many agricultural issues 

influencing daily life. It also is critical 

that accurate science be communicated 

and distributed to policymakers and 

legislators for their continuing debate 

and eventual decisions on agricultural 

issues that impact the nation and the 

world. CAST is uniquely qualified to 

provide this information now and into 

Preface Author
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

Introduction

American agriculture has long provided adequate quantities of low-cost, 

healthful food for domestic consumption and substantial quantities for export. Agriculture’s ability to continue 

meeting those needs is challenged by 

emerging domestic constraints on land 

use, water availability, and the environment, driven by broad concerns of 

U.S. society. Recent increases in petroleum prices have encouraged policies 

that make the conversion of crops into 

fuel profitable for the ethanol industry. Globally, agriculture faces unprecedented challenges such as increases in 

the demand for livestock-based foods in 

Asia, climate change that threatens to 

decrease production capacity in many 

places around the world, and increasing 

demand due to continuing rapid population growth in some poor countries.

This report addresses U.S. agricultural science and technology policy, 

and also recognizes that actions of one 

nation cannot be viewed in isolation—

given environmental spillovers and 

improved transportation and communication. The report does not explicitly 

address important issues of food safety 

and nutrient balance, international trade 

barriers, farm price and income supports, the obesity epidemic, water management, rural development, and the 

like, but instead stresses the more basic 

need for knowledge to make sound decisions regarding such issues. 

The interrelations between U.S. and 

global agriculture are large; however, 

given several existing comprehensive 

analyses of global agriculture and related matters,1

 the authors do not address 

international policy, with two exceptions. To the extent that actions in other 

countries have major impact on global 

food availability, the paper briefly reviews those impacts, and where U.S. 

policy actions have a dominant impact 

on the capacity of poor developing nations to meet their own food needs, the 

paper addresses those actions as well. 

Correcting pathologies in the broader U.S. economy can reinforce the ability of agriculture to increase its productivity and exports. Dominant challenges 

include the need to end the three-decade-long pattern of living beyond our 

means: importing more than we export, 

borrowing more than we lend, spending more than we earn, and consuming 

more than we produce. Correcting this 

imbalance will require the value of the 

dollar to fall in relation to other currencies, interest rates to rise, and consumers to save more of what they earn. If 

we can make those changes, American 

agriculture will become less dependent 

on domestic markets and take greater 

advantage of global markets where food 

demand will nearly double by mid-century. The limited scope for global land 

and water resources to meet those demands at current food prices generates 

an opportunity for the United States. If 

U.S. agriculture can achieve substantial 

productivity gains while maintaining 

the quality of land, water, and biological 

resources, then it will profitably contribute to meeting the food and agricultural 

needs of global consumers in the twenty-first century. Improved productivity 

gains without sharply rising food prices, 

however, will require increased, sustained support for agricultural research 

in the United States, as well as assistance to developing countries abroad 

(Bertini and Glickman 2009).

In addition to traditional expectations, agriculture today also is being 

called on to contribute to the energy 

needs of the planet and to help mitigate 

global climate change. The demand for 

bioproducts and biofuels is virtually unlimited at expected future energy prices, 

but resources for production will constrain supply. In addition to supplying 

feedstocks for biofuels, some agricultural cropland resources will be shifted 

to trees, which sequester more carbon 

more sustainably and hence earn more 

carbon credits than cropland. 

Meanwhile, there are huge unfulfilled demands for output of agriculture 

among the approximately 1 billion people in some developing countries who 

rarely get enough to eat for a productive 

life (FAO 2006). And billions of people 

in growing economies such as China 

and India will demand more meat, milk, 

and eggs in their diets as their incomes 

grow and they increase their expectation 

for a better life. 

Given the finite nature of natural 

resources and the constraints on their 

further exploitation, if the United States 

is to meet a substantial fraction of the 

global agricultural output needs without 

a sharp increase in food prices it will 

have to further increase production per 

unit of land, water, and nutrient resources. Those increases can be achieved 

only through enhanced efficiency supported by research focused on sustainable agricultural productivity. 

Future Demands Facing

Agriculture

American consumers demand food 

that is safe, convenient, nutritious, and 

affordable, and U.S. agriculture continues to meet those demands. But the 

widening scope and depth of future 

demands on the industry from nontraditional sources is especially daunting. 

Ever-accelerating globalization characterized by improvements in transportation and communication, falling trade 

barriers, and ever-growing demand for 

exports to pay for oil and other imports 

means that global demand and U.S. 

demand are virtually indistinguishable 

to U.S. agriculture. Given the direct 

relationship between the output of ethanol and the input of corn, when domestic oil and gasoline prices rise sharply, 

the demand for ethanol and corn in the 

United States also rises sharply (Eidman 

2006). But the opposite holds as well, 

as illustrated by the ethanol plants that 

shut down in 2009 after oil prices fell. 

Hence, when oil prices are high, the 

competition between bioenergy and 

food increases. The end result is that 

the potential demand for farm output is 

nearly unlimited. 

Meanwhile, crop and livestock pests 

and diseases continue to emerge in varied forms to challenge agricultural productivity, not because past eradication 

efforts have failed but because pests 

continue to evolve to thwart earlier controls. Climate change and unstable eco1 The United Nation’s Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment (2005) examines the consequences 

of ecosystem change for human well-being. The 

United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (2009) was created to provide the world 

with a clear scientific view on the current state of 

climate change and its potential environmental and 

socio-economic consequences. The World Bankinitiated International Assessment of Agricultural 

Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (2007) focuses on how the world can reduce 

hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and 

facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially, and 

economically sustainable development through 

the generation of, access to, and use of agricultural 

knowledge, science, and technology. The International Water Management Institute’s Comprehensive 

Assessment (2007) places water management in agriculture in a social, ecological, and political context 

and assesses the dominant drivers of change.
4 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

nomic conditions arising from nature 

and human activities also continue to 

confound the food system’s best efforts 

to serve consumers. In short, the task of 

serving the myriad demands for agricultural output at home and abroad has 

never been greater. 

The principal drivers of global 

demand for farm output are growing world population, higher expectations for standard of living, increases in 

disposable income, and greater energy 

needs. Global population will continue 

to grow for at least another 30 to 40 

years. Rising income will add to food 

demand, especially in developing countries where a sizable share of income is 

spent on food. In addition to biofuels, 

bioproducts for pharmaceuticals and 

biodegradable plastics also are potentially huge emerging sources of farm 

output demand. 

The overall global growth rate in per 

capita food and fiber demand from income has been quite stable at 0.27 % per 

year during the past 60 years.2

 This stability comes from the slowing increase 

in per capita food demand from wealthy 

countries offset by growing food demand in developing countries where 

food use is more responsive to income.

Table 1 shows past and projected 

annual growth rates in farm output demand from 1961 to 2050 from population only and from all sources, based 

on a study by Tweeten and Thompson 

(2009). (The initial year, 1961, was 

chosen because several data series began with that year.)

Population projections in Table 1 

are from the United Nations (UN 2008). 

Many demographers view the assumptions underlying the “low” and “medium” projections as most likely, and they 

use the medium variant for projecting 

population (Tweeten and Thompson 

2009). That variant calls for global 

population to grow at 0.82% per year 

in 2025 and at 0.36% per year in 2050. 

World population growth rates have 

been slowing for some years and several experts believe that global population will have already begun to fall by 

mid-century, as shown by the negative 

growth rate of –0.17% per year under 

the low population growth variant in 

Table 1.3

After year 2000, projected world demand growth for farm output per capita 

is calculated as the average compound 

rate of growth in population plus 0.25% 

annually due to income growth and 

0.10% annually due to sources other 

than food and fiber. (See next section 

for elaboration on bioenergy demand 

underlying the especially elusive 0.10 

number.)4

 Based on the medium population variant and including nonfood 

demands, overall demand for farm 

products is projected to be 143% of year 

2000 output in 2025 and 179% of 2000 

output in 2050 (Table 1). The demand 

projected from the high population variant seems unlikely, but the more plausible demand under the medium UN 

population projection requires a near 

doubling of agricultural output from 

2000 to 2050. Because of their high income elasticities of demand and rapid 

population growth, developing countries will increase demand for farm output much faster than the world average.

Bioenergy and

Bioproducts Bring a

New Paradigm for

Agriculture

As petroleum becomes a more limited and expensive resource, and with 

recognition that agriculture can contribute to the energy challenge, any consideration of agricultural policy must take 

into account bioenergy and bioproducts. 

Until energy became such a relevant 

issue, agriculture was thought of in 

terms of food for humans, feed for livestock and companion animals, fiber for 

clothes and homes, and “flowers” for 

Table 1. Rate of increase and global total demand for farm output due to population only and

from all sources in selected years from 1961 to 2050 (Tweeten and Thompson 2009)

Year

	 Actual	 Projected

Item	 1961	 1975	 2000	 Variant	 2025	 2050

%/year

Population only	 1.89	 1.85	 1.31	 low	 0.48	 –0.17

	 	 	 medium	 0.82	 0.36

	 	 	 high	 1.13	 0.88

Total agricultural demand	 —	 —	 —	 low	 0.83	 0.18

	 	 	 medium	 1.17	 0.71

	 	 	 high	 1.48	 1.23

Agricultural output, accumulated demand	 Year 2000 = 100

Population only	 50	 67	 100	 low	 124	 127

	 	 	 medium	 131	 150

	 	 	 high	 138	 176

Total agricultural demand	 —	 —	 —	 low	 135	 152

	 	 	 medium	 143	 179

	 	 	 high	 151	 209

2 In technical terms, stability occurred as slow 

increases in demand from wealthy countries with 

falling income elasticities of food demand and rising incomes were offset by more robust increases in 

demand from developing countries with relatively 

high income elasticities of food demand (Tweeten 

2007, p. 183).

3 Recent evidence of rising fertility rates in the most 

affluent developed countries raises the unsettling 

prospect for food demand that the demographic 

transition does not culminate in zero or negative 

population growth but rather in positive population 

growth (Best 2009).

4 The food demand projection is consistent with 

those of other analysts (Runge et al. 2003; World 

Bank 2008). The future agricultural demands for 

ethanol, projected to grow 0.1% per year in Table 1, 

depend on technology such as for cellulosic ethanol, 

the price of oil, and federal subsidies. In 2009, the 

U.S. Department of Energy projected the price of oil 

to be $121 per barrel for ethanol in 2025 and $130 

per barrel in 2030, numbers well above the breakeven estimate of $80 per barrel for ethanol to be 

competitive (USDOE 2009). Although demand for 

crop-based ethanol is virtually limitless, the quantity 

supplied will in fact be severely constrained by 

farming resources and technology. The reader may 

wish to examine alternative ethanol demand growth 

scenarios to that in Table 1.
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5

our enrichment and the landscape. The 

new paradigm adds fuel (energy and 

various bioproducts) and carbon sequestration to that portfolio. 

As this process evolves there will 

be competition for resources. Use of 

land, nutrients, and water will require 

hard choices and result in conflict, as 

evidenced in the United States in 2008 

with the sometimes heated “food vs. 

fuel” debate. Indeed, one of the most 

critical issues facing all nations is 

achieving a greater degree of sustainable energy security.

In view that petroleum is a highly 

fungible good (one that is substitutable 

in kind), energy should be viewed from 

a global perspective. The United States, 

as well as many other countries worldwide, is establishing goals and plans 

that will address this concern, including 

the use of approaches that capture the 

potential of wind, hydro, geothermal, 

solar, nuclear, river and ocean currents, 

and ocean waves, as well as bioenergy. 

The sun’s energy can be captured directly by photovoltaic cells, photothermal 

plates, and through green plant photosynthesis. Each of these approaches 

has merit and, in time, will contribute 

to solving the energy challenge; but 

harvesting the sun’s energy through 

green plant photosynthesis—one of the 

most promising approaches—if widely 

implemented, will greatly impact the 

future needs and expectations of agriculture. 

Although demands on land, water, 

and plant nutrient resources will provide 

mankind with awesome challenges, the 

sun provides a limitless source of clean 

energy for the next 3 to 5 billion years. 

The challenge is how best to harvest 

the sun’s energy in a readily useable 

form. In desert environments around the 

world, photovoltaic cells and photothermal plates would be the approaches of 

choice, whereas in other regions green 

plant photosynthesis—that is, agriculture—would be most appropriate. 

Current exploitation of photosynthesis 

includes burning wood and other biomass for its heat and converting crops 

such as corn and sugarcane to ethanol. 

Researchers in the United States and 

around the world are working vigorously to develop more efficient means 

of converting wood and other biomass 

such as straw, stover, or grass into liquid 

transportation fuels like ethanol.5

Biomass energy also can be used to 

generate electricity, but its lower density 

means it is more expensive to transport, limiting its feasibility. Probably 

the greatest advantage of capitalizing 

on the sun’s energy is that all nations 

have access to this energy source so that 

with feasible technology and adequate 

capital, energy from the sun could be 

converted everywhere into the electricity and liquid fuels all countries require. Whereas only certain nations are 

blessed with such energy resources as 

fossil, wind, geothermal, nuclear, and 

hydro energy, every nation on earth has 

and can use the sun’s energy. Although 

the sun’s energy is not the total solution 

to the energy challenge, it can be a major contributor.

 

Emerging Constraints

on Future Agricultural

Productivity in the

United States

A wide variety of issues pose challenges for future agricultural productivity; those issues include soil erosion, water use, bioengineered plants, 

animal welfare and livestock production 

practices, endangered species protection, fertilizer use, and global warming. 

Agriculture faces increasing competition for land and water from urban 

populations and industry in and around 

U.S. cities and competition for the environmental services that space and water 

provide to society as a whole.

Agricultural production entails environmental externalities (unintended 

consequences) that are attracting increased attention from society. This 

attention is leading to government interventions in markets in the form of local, 

state, national, and even international 

policies that influence the management 

of soil, water, air resources and, increasingly, animal husbandry and land. In recent decades, as more large-scale farms 

emerged and the nature of farming 

externalities changed, the public has demanded policies to address issues such 

as crop genetic engineering and animal 

agriculture. Policies related to climate 

change loom on the horizon.

Soil, Water, and Crop Issues

Soil Erosion

The most serious environmental 

problem of agriculture dating back at 

least to the 1930s was soil erosion. In 

the post-World War II era, land setasides and conservation measures were 

used to address erosion and decrease the 

surplus production encouraged by crop 

price supports. More recently, the attendant problems of water pollution from 

sediments, synthetic chemicals, and 

pesticides have become of great concern. By 1983, government programs 

had diverted 31.6 million hectares (78 

million acres) of cropland, many of 

them highly productive, to soil-conserving uses (APAC 2001). Under pressure of growing demand, the land in the 

Conservation Reserve fell to approximately 12.1 million hectares (30 million 

acres) and government programs such 

as Sodbuster and Swampbuster have 

been added.6 

The wide adoption of reduced tillage on row crops also has reduced soil 

erosion. High-yield technology has obviated the need to crop fragile and highly erodible lands. Once the moldboard 

plow was used to prepare most corn 

land, but by 1991 only 15% of corn 

acreage was tilled by a moldboard plow. 

Reduced tillage keeps carbon out of the 

atmosphere and sequesters it as organic 

matter, useful for retaining moisture and 

nutrients in the soil. 

Excess production capacity (apparent in land diverted from crop production by government programs) is now 

minimal for responding to growing 

demands for agricultural output. But 

emerging technologies can prompt reconsideration of policies. For example, 

the Conservation Reserve might be 

reduced if cellulosic ethanol becomes 

economically feasible. Feedstocks of 

perennial grasses and trees can be produced on erodible land with minimal 

soil erosion or other damage to the 

environment.

5 Harvesting of crop residues as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol can conflict with environmental goals if 

cropland erosion increases and water quality declines.

6 These are programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS).
6 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Water Quality and Quantity

Historically, irrigation was the largest user of water. In the United States in 

2005, however, cooling for thermoelectric power generation was the largest 

use of water, accounting for approximately half the 410,000 million gallons per day withdrawn, 92% of that 

used on a “once-through” basis (USGS 

2009). Irrigation was the second largest use, accounting for 39% of the total, 

and public water supply, industrial uses, 

aquaculture, and livestock uses comprised the balance. Water not withdrawn 

from rivers and streams provides important environmental services including 

the required protection of endangered 

aquatic species.7

Farming can have a serious impact 

on water quality. An Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) survey in 

the 1990s found that 2% of rural water 

wells contained nitrate levels in excess of EPA safety standards and 0.6% 

of wells exceeded the pesticide safety 

level (Tweeten 1996). Modern precision farming with global positioning 

systems, yield monitors, weather-dependent fertilizer application rates, and other computer-assisted tools helps farmers 

avoid overuse of chemicals by tailoring 

applications to crop needs. 

Bioengineered Crops

Plants bioengineered to resist 

pests can decrease the need for synthetic pesticides. The first bioengineered crops presented a challenge to 

the U.S. regulatory system because they 

had aspects that fell under the purview of the USDA, the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), and the EPA 

(US Regulatory Agencies 2005). Those 

challenges have been worked out and 

such crops are deployed widely in the 

United States with evident benefits to 

the environment. For example, modern 

“three-stack” corn hybrids contain bioengineered genes that confer rootworm 

and earworm control as well as glyphosate tolerance that facilitates weed control. The result is better water quality 

due to less applied synthetic pesticides.

Bioengineered crops decrease soil 

erosion by facilitating no-till practices 

and improving water quality as less mechanical cultivation is needed to control 

weeds. Research on plants bioengineered to cope better with heat, salinity, and moisture stress offers substantive new benefits not only for the United 

States, but especially for tropical and 

subtropical areas. 

Significant voices still oppose the 

use of genetically engineered crops 

in the United States. In Europe those 

voices have been strong enough to effectively limit the use of bioengineered 

crops. Europe followed a different 

public policy approach with regulations 

focused on processes used rather than 

on the resulting products. Many African 

and Asian countries fear genetically engineered crops and have not established 

regulations governing their use, effectively banning them. Bioengineered 

crops need to be monitored for safety, 

but excessive caution can seriously undermine U.S. and global efforts to serve 

future demands on agriculture.

Animal Welfare Issues

Growth of large farms has brought 

to the fore issues concerning livestock 

production practices. The development 

of agricultural operations where animals 

are raised or kept in confinement or on a 

small land area with feed delivered rather than the animals grazing has led to 

the development of EPA regulations on 

concentrated animal feeding operations 

(CAFOs) (US Regulatory Agencies 

2005). These regulations can significantly increase capital requirements and 

costs in dairy, hog, and other livestock 

production systems. 

State and local regulations stemming from animal welfare concerns 

have a similar effect of raising production costs. If costs increase too much, 

livestock production will shift to jurisdictions without such regulations. Thus, 

federal regulations may drive production overseas and state regulations may 

drive production into other states with 

lower animal welfare standards (see 

Textbox 1). 

When markets alone do not provide 

desirable levels of environmental protection or animal welfare, a public role 

may be appropriate. The usual avenue 

for public policy is through state or national legislators. Alternative agriculture advocates (political consumers) 

increasingly turn to the plebiscite democracy of the referendum rather than 

the traditional representative democracy 

of legislatures to achieve their objectives. Unless voters are informed by 

science and education, unintended consequences may result from plebiscite 

democracy. For example, requirements 

for costly facilities and equipment mandated for U.S. poultry and livestock producers can drive production elsewhere. 

Another example is organic food that, 

by rejecting genetically modified varieties and synthetic herbicides, fertilizers, 

and pesticides, can cost substantially 

more than conventionally produced 

foods (Knutson et al. 1990). Such examples are not used here to condemn 

political consumerism, but to caution 

that science and education need to attend the decision process to avoid counterproductive outcomes. 

Labeling of products for practices 

used to produce them, such as organic, fair trade, non-genetically modified 

organism (non-GMO), or non-bovine 

somatotropin (non-BST), is a productivity-enhancing and hence resourcesaving alternative to costly statewide 

or national government mandates. With 

products labeled as to how they are produced, consumers can vote with dollars 

in the marketplace for the practices they 

are willing to pay for. To the extent that 

such labeled production practices sometimes require more resources and hence 

are higher cost, they constitute further 

California voters passed Proposition 2 mandating that as of January 

1, 2015, it shall be a misdemeanor for 

any person to confine a pregnant pig, 

calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen 

in a manner not allowing the animal to 

turn around freely, stand up, lie down, 

and fully extend its limbs. A laying hen 

has a wingspan of 3 feet, hence would 

require 9 square feet per bird, more 

than 10 times the current average 

cage space per laying hen. Compared 

with current practices, egg producers likely would see cost increases of 

20% or more for larger cages, 26% 

for raising hens in barns, and 45% for 

free-range poultry production (Sumner 

et al. 2008).

Textbox 1. Animal welfare issues in 

California

7 In some places these are substantial issues. For 

example, the quantity of water pumped into the 

California aqueduct was the subject of a lawsuit (see 

Textbox 2).
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

Program report identified dead zones 

as one of the most significant global 

environmental threats facing the world. 

According to the report there are more 

than 146 dead zones around the world 

that range in size from between one 

square kilometer to more than 70,000 

square kilometers.

Potassium reserves are abundant. 

Phosphorus derived from phosphate 

rock is a limiting mineral resource in 

crop production. The United States extracted 31 million metric tons (mmt) 

of phosphate rock in 2008 from a reserve base8

 of 3,400 mmt, or a 110-year 

supply at the 2008 rate of production 

(United Nations 2008). This supply is 

not a comfortable margin for an element 

so basic to crop production, and the 

United States eventually will become 

a net importer of phosphate. World 

phosphate production totaled 167 mmt 

in 2008 from a reserve base totaling 

47,000 mmt, or a 281-year supply at the 

2008 production rate. Nearly half the 

world’s phosphate rock reserves are in 

Morocco and the Western Sahara. 

Overuse of phosphorus creates a 

less sustainable agriculture and causes 

environmental damage as water is contaminated. Production and consumption of phosphate rock will increase 

in the future, but known reserves will 

expand as phosphate rock prices rise 

with increasing rock scarcity. The ocean 

floor holds unrecorded large reserves, 

but mining such reserves is expensive. 

There is no substitute for phosphorus in 

plant growth, but some plants require 

more phosphorus than others and plant 

breeding can decrease nutrient use per 

unit of crop production.

Global Warming

Global warming influences the demand for natural resources. Although 

overall agricultural output and cropland 

area may not be affected materially in 

the United States, the location of crop 

production and land in crops will change 

(Rosenzweig and Hillel 2005). With 

adaptation to global warming, cropland area and production are expected 

to increase especially in the Lake States 

and also in the Northeast, Cornbelt, 

Mountain, and Pacific regions and to 

decrease especially in the Southeast, but 

also in the Delta and Southern Plains regions. Overall rainfall may increase and 

be more variable with warming. Water 

shortages are evident already but will 

intensify, notably in the Colorado and 

Rio Grande river basins and the Ogallala 

aquifer of the Great Plains. 

Major Issues Facing

Future Agricultural

Productivity Outside the

United States

Worldwide, issues that will pose 

challenges for future agricultural productivity include natural resource costs, 

food demand vs. food supply, and climate change. 

Natural Resource Costs

The world will not run out of natural resources but their cost rises as marginal reserves are used. For example, 

millions of hectares of land are available for cropping in Brazil and Africa, 

but only under a rising supply price to 

compensate for needed investment in 

roads and other infrastructure. The lowest-cost sources of irrigation water already have been developed, and regions 

such as North Africa and the Middle 

East will experience severe water shortages as agriculture competes with urban 

uses for water and land. As with other 

demands on agriculture.

Endangered Species Act

In many countries, particularly in 

the United States, there is great concern about the increasing loss of plant 

and animal species. Preserving natural resources and maintaining diversity 

of the planet’s flora and fauna is important. Protection of species, however, comes at considerable cost (see 

Textbox 2). Preserving diversity poses 

one of Earth’s most serious dilemmas. 

The planet’s resource base is critically 

needed for production of food, feed, 

fiber, and energy, while land resources 

also are required for the multitudes of 

plant and animal species. Again, this issue can be addressed by more definitive 

research on how best to preserve plant 

and animal species with minimal impact 

on the land and water resource base.

Fertilizer Resources 

Among principal commercial fertilizer resources, nitrogen is plentiful in 

the air but currently is made available 

to agriculture through petroleum feedstock. Although fertilizers are effective in driving crop yield improvements, 

they also frequently have a negative impact on the environment. Because most 

plants are able to use only a portion of 

the nitrogen fertilizer applied by growers, much of the remaining nitrogen 

fertilizer is lost through volatilization or 

leaches into the soil and water and pollutes lakes, rivers, aquifers, and oceans.

A significant portion of the unabsorbed nitrogen fertilizer volatilizes in 

the form of nitrous oxide. In fact, agriculture is the second largest industrial 

contributor to global greenhouse gases 

(GHGs)—ahead of the transportation 

sector and behind only electrical and 

heat generation. 

One of the most visible examples 

of the harmful environmental effects 

of nitrogen fertilizers is the creation 

of “dead zones” in the world’s oceans. 

Dead zones result from the death and 

decomposition of massive algae blooms 

that are fed by excessive nutrient runoff. 

When algae populations get too large, 

they die and their natural decomposition depletes the water of oxygen. This 

creates a condition called “hypoxia” and 

results in suffocation and death of fish.

A 2004 United Nations Environment 

In 2009, the amount of water being 

pumped into the California aqueduct 

has be dramatically reduced because 

a small fish, the Sacramento River 

smelt—an endangered species—

cannot be screened out from the 

pumps. In some cases only 15% of 

the normal supply of water is being 

provided. Farmers currently are cutting 

down almond orchards or are leaving 

the land fallow because there is not 

enough water to grow a crop. It is an 

example of unintended consequences 

or an incomplete cost/benefit analysis, 

where some of the most productive 

farmland in the United States can no 

longer be used at a time when the 

state is in a dire economic condition.

Textbox 2. An Endangered Species 

Act example

8 The reserve base includes resources that are currently economic, marginally economic, and some 

that are currently subeconomic.
8 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

natural resources, the thrust needs to be 

on achieving greater productivity from 

existing resources rather than from expansion of resource utilization.

Food Demand vs. Food 

Supply

Both increases in land area farmed 

and increases in productivity have contributed to keeping food production 

ahead of population growth. Yield per 

hectare (or yield per acre) is the most 

familiar and widely available measure 

of productivity. Tweeten and Thompson 

(2009) reported that global cereal yields 

increased at approximately 3% annually 

in 1961, 2% annually in 1975, and 1.4% 

annually in 2000; yields of vegetable oil 

crops increased at about 4% annually 

in 1961, 2.6% annually in 1975, and 

1.58% annually in 2000. The weighted 

total of all livestock and crop yields 

grew at 2.4% per year in 1961, 1.7% 

per year in 1975, and 1.13% per year in 

2000.9

 Other analysts find similar patterns, as shown for “land productivity” 

(excluding China) in Table 2. Global 

agricultural labor productivity (excluding China) grew at 1.23% per year from 

1961 to 1989 and at 0.42% per year 

from 1990 to 2005. The story in China 

clearly is different, with labor productivity growing faster in the second period, perhaps because China has followed 

unique policies for the past half-century. 

Judgments about the future global 

food situation come down to comparing the rates of growth in food demand 

and food supply. During the twentieth 

century, the rate of growth in supply 

exceeded that of demand; as a result, 

food prices in the United States and the 

world generally fell during that period 

as illustrated in Figure 1. The sharp 

upturn since 2005 is evident, but food 

prices turned down again in 2008. The 

reversal of the secular downtrend of 

real prices between 2005 and 2008 led 

to strong concerns about the prospects 

for meeting future needs. China, Brazil, 

and India suffered from insufficient agricultural growth in the not-too-distant 

past, but in the most recent two decades 

turned around their performance. SubSaharan Africa, the epicenter of famines 

in the 1980s and 1990s, continues to be 

a cause for concern.

Climate Change

Developing country agriculture is 

likely to be impacted more negatively 

by global warming than temperate zone 

agriculture. Night temperatures and longer dry periods are expected to increase 

in areas close to the equator, and these 

changes are expected to be relatively 

more intense than in temperate regions 

and hence stress crops relatively more 

in tropical than in temperate regions. 

 

Country/Regional Examples

Four countries (or regions) are particularly relevant with regard to agricultural policy for the twenty-first century. 

China and India represent exceedingly 

large population centers of the future 

world. Brazil has the greatest still-untapped potential of agricultural productivity. Sub-Saharan Africa represents 

the region on the planet with the greatest challenge with regard to sustenance 

for its people.

China

Rapid income growth in China was 

well established by the mid-1990s and 

Figure 1. Real U.S. prices of maize, soybeans, and wheat, 1924–2008 (Alston, 

Beddow, and Pardey 2008).

Table 2. Growth in agricultural land and labor productivity worldwide, 1961–2005 

(Alston, Beddow, and Pardey 2008)

Land Productivity	 Labor Productivity

Group	 1961–1989	 1990–2005	 1961–1989	 1990–2005

Developing countries	 2.60	 3.00	 1.60	 2.56

Excluding China	 2.47	 2.29	 1.49	 1.49

Developed countries	 1.71	 0.27	 3.81	 2.89

World	 2.04	 1.84	 1.12	 1.37

Excluding China	 1.93	 1.20	 1.23	 0.42

Excluding China and USSR	 1.93	 1.58	 1.14	 0.73

Top 20 producers	 2.08	 2.18	 1.14	 1.78

Excluding China	 1.98	 1.38	 1.32	 0.63

Other producers	 1.83	 0.88	 1.08	 0.07

Maize

Wheat

Soybeans

0

Index of real prices (1924=100)

1924

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1928

1932

1936

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

9 Rates are expressed for a single year because 

Tweeten and Thompson measured them along linear 

trend lines.
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

led some people to question whether 

the world had the ability to meet the 

expected growing Chinese demand for 

food, especially meat, fruit, and vegetables. Some projections held that net 

import demand might reach 400 mmt of 

feed grains by 2030 (Fan and AgcaoiliSombilla 2002), and many people worried about the impact such demand 

would place on the global ecosystem 

(Brown 1995). In 1975, China’s per 

capita consumption of calories, fats, and 

protein were all well below the world 

average, but by the late 1990s they exceeded the world average and continue 

to increase. 

Confounding those earlier expectations, during the past decade (despite 

accelerating income growth) China has 

not greatly increased its demands on the 

world food market. Its imports of rice and 

wheat have been modest, and it continues 

to export corn, aquatic, and horticultural 

products. Consumption of chicken rather 

than pork has increased dramatically 

(Gale and Henneberry 2009). 

Some of the muted increase in 

demand is attributed to price changes 

and resulting consumer adjustments. 

For example, in 1991 the retail price 

of eggs was 12 times the price of flour, 

whereas by 1995 egg prices were only 

about 3 times the price of flour. These 

and other changes in the relative prices 

of pork, eggs, and chicken have shaped 

demand and greatly decreased the need 

for corn, but have increased the imports 

of soybeans. China increased its annual total corn consumption from 125 

mmt to 160 mmt from 2000 to 2009 and 

met that increase from internal production, decreasing its exports from approximately 10 mmt to less than 1 mmt 

and with less than 0.2 mmt of imports 

(USFAS 2009). China’s imports of 

soybeans were 28 mmt in 2005–06 and 

grew to 38 mmt in 2009–10, with soybean production of 16 mmt in 2005–06 

and essentially the same amount in 

2009–10.

India

The story of production, productivity, and food security in India is somewhat similar to China’s but less buoyant. India’s general economic growth 

accelerated somewhat later than China’s 

and to less lofty levels; but India’s food 

production growth rates began to accelerate earlier than China’s, beginning 

in the mid-1960s, and have continued through the beginning years of the 

twenty-first century, driven by increasing crop yields and fertilizer efficiency 

(Evenson, Pray, and Rosegrant 1999). 

Concerns in India now focus on the 

government’s crop price supports, subsidies to fertilizer, and subsidies to electricity used to pump irrigation water, the 

latter especially leading to overexploitation of groundwater (Shah and Verma 

2009). Careful analysis indicates that 

the marked historic discrimination 

against agriculture created by trade and 

other policies has evolved to approximate neutrality between their agricultural and non-agricultural traded sectors 

(Gulati and Pursell 2008). On a simple 

yield basis, India, with average grain 

yields of approximately 3 metric tons 

per hectare (mt/ha), would seem to have 

much greater potential to increase production than China, with national grain 

yields already exceeding 6 mt/ha. 

Brazil

During the past 40 years Brazil’s 

agriculture has grown rapidly. Driven 

by incentives that encouraged exploitation of savanna and tropical forest, 

from 1970 to 1990 Brazil’s production 

of soybeans, corn, rice, edible beans, 

and wheat rose to 54 mmt, double the 

level of 1970. In the 1990s, Brazil instituted new macro-economic policies 

that ended decades of hyperinflation, 

thereby improving market incentives. 

From 1990 to 2005 production of major 

crops again doubled. Brazil has become 

the world’s second largest exporter of 

soybeans and the largest exporter of orange juice, sugar, beef, poultry, coffee, 

and ethanol. 

Brazil is using only one-third of its 

potential arable land, suggesting that 

continued growth of agriculture is possible (Valdes 2006). To realize that 

possibility, Brazil will need to ensure a 

favorable macro-economic environment 

and adequate investment, and to deal 

with continued opposition to clearing the 

Amazon and exploiting its savanna. But 

the physical capacity exists to increase 

production and exports considerably. 

Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa is composed 

of more than 45 countries including 

15 with fewer than 5 million people. 

Many of these countries are landlocked; 

many have fragile governments, limited 

transportation, and inadequate communication. The countries of sub-Saharan 

Africa have experienced decades of 

slow economic growth. With more than 

120 million “ultra poor” people, rapid 

population growth, civil violence, a 

rampant HIV/AIDS epidemic, and recurrent food crises, Africa’s challenges 

are deep and persistent. 

Between the 1960s—when most 

African countries achieved independence—and the 1980s, population 

growth outpaced food production, 

reducing per capita food availability. 

Africa is the most rural of global regions with 65% of its workforce in agriculture, so regardless of the assistance 

it may (or may not) get from the rest of 

the world, increasing the productivity of 

its agriculture will be absolutely necessary if Africa is to work its way out of 

its problems. 

The growth rate of the agricultural 

gross domestic product (GDP) per person was close to zero in the 1970s and 

negative through the 1980s and 1990s. 

But with positive growth rates in the 

past 10 years, this trend has been reversed, suggesting that the stagnation 

in sub-Saharan agriculture may be over 

(World Bank 2008). To prosper, subSaharan Africa has significant challenges to overcome. Investment in human 

resources, irrigation, marketing systems, 

transportation, agricultural technology, 

and computer network infrastructure 

are critically necessary if the region is 

to continue to accelerate its agricultural 

output. 

Strategies to Meet

Future Needs for

Agricultural Output

The basic framework of strategies to 

meet future needs for agricultural output 

is straightforward. 

Harness Market Power

No country can meet the demands 

for agricultural output without harnessing 
10 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

the power of markets in directing what, 

how, when, and where to produce. Even 

a country with a sound, market-based 

food system has disadvantaged persons 

who lack access to food, housing, and 

other items essential for a productive 

and healthy life. But markets perform 

poorly without a supportive institutional 

structure. Key elements of that structure 

are government provision for equity and 

for public goods and services. 

Support Research

The public sector makes provision 

for public goods and services because 

the private sector acting alone underinvests; firms are unable to capture 

enough of the (perhaps considerable) 

social benefits to cover costs. Examples 

are infrastructure such as roads, as well 

as education and basic research. Sound 

economic policy is to subsidize activities such as research and education that 

have positive externalities and to tax 

activity such as smoking that has negative externalities. A strong case can be 

made to publically support research on 

alternative energy technology such as 

cellulosic ethanol and other agricultural 

technologies outlined in the Appendix. 

Basic research that has no immediate application but a potentially large 

future value tends to be underfunded by 

the private sector. Public agricultural 

research has a proven record of high 

payoffs in the past and much promise 

for the future. The high rates of return, 

frequently 40% or more on investment, indicate that agricultural research 

has been underfunded in the past by 

the public sector (Alston et al. 2000; 

Gardner and Lesser 2003; Huffman and 

Evenson 2006.) The private sector has 

stepped up research in recent years but 

will not fund research with a large public but small private payoff.

Assist Less-Developed 

Countries

The foregoing remarks apply to rich 

and poor countries alike, but given the 

dire food insecurity in developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa, it is useful 

to review opportunities for the United 

States to help less-developed countries (LDCs) meet their need for food 

and other agricultural output (Tweeten 

2007).

• The United States will continue 

to provide humanitarian food and 

medical support to deal with crises 

of hunger and disease in LDCs. But 

the priority is for poor countries to 

follow sound economic policies, 

thus raising living standards so that 

no country perennially needs to depend on donor charity.

• LDCs need continuing help to build 

institutional and intellectual capacity so they can avoid or treat economic, social, and environmental 

problems. In many instances this 

will mean bringing students from 

LDCs to study in U.S. universities. But increasingly, education 

of such students will take place in 

LDC institutions assisted by modern electronic communication with 

advanced institutions of education 

and research.

• Some environmental solutions 

must come multilaterally through 

international agreements—given 

the “free rider” problem10 and the 

global consequences of air, water, 

and land degradation. 

• One of the highest payoff policies is open international trade and 

investment markets. Freer trade in 

most cases pays off whether done 

unilaterally, bilaterally, or regionally, but is best done multilaterally. Nine recent and past studies reviewed by Huff, Krivonos, 

and van der Mensbrugghe (2007) 

predict that global international 

trade liberalization would add $12 

billion to $155 billion (1997 U.S. 

dollars) annually to world income. 

Interestingly, the largest gains to 

developing countries come from 

liberalizing their own markets. 

Multilateral negotiations need to 

work toward farm commodity 

price and income support programs 

that, if used at all, give access by 

other countries to local markets 

and avoid dumping commodities 

abroad at subsidized prices. 

• Sub-Saharan Africa and many 

other poor regions desperately need 

improved technologies to raise agricultural productivity. Although 

agricultural and environmental 

technology has been found to have 

a high payoff, poor countries (aside 

from notable exceptions such as 

Brazil, China, and India) do not 

have the economic means or political will to sustain the necessary research. Africa spends less than 0.5 

% of its agricultural GDP on agricultural research, in part because 

countries do not recognize the high 

payoff from investing more and 

in part because they cannot afford 

more. Wealthy nations spend 2 to 

4% of their agricultural GDP on agricultural research, a growing part 

of that by the private sector. 

The United States and other developed countries do a great service by 

performing basic research, often with 

wide possible application. Considerable 

adaptive research development and dissemination are required to apply results 

of basic research to the disparate agricultures and environments of LDCs. 

Small developing countries especially 

need assistance in adapting basic research to local environments. 

Falcon and Naylor (2005) document the alarming shift of international 

support away from agricultural research 

and development (R&D). Globally, the 

real value of R&D aid to agriculture 

in the late 1990s was down one-third 

from its level a decade earlier. The U.S. 

Agency for International Development 

cut its agricultural staff by more than 

two-thirds from its peak in 1990. The 

budget of the Consultative Group on 

International Agricultural Research 

(CGIAR) system—the institutional father of the green revolution estimated to 

have saved 1 billion lives—stagnated at 

approximately $350 million in nominal terms from 1992 to 2001, implying 

that annual funding fell in real terms. 

The CGIAR’s comparative advantage, 

which is its productivity-enhancing agricultural research, accounted for just 

one-sixth of its budget, and expenditures fell 6.5 % annually in real terms 

from 1992 to 2001. 

Africa is a continent characterized 

by so-called “orphan crops.” Countries 

that grow these crops have limited resources and consequently do not adequately fund R&D; these countries are 

largely bypassed by the green revolu10 A free rider takes no action, expecting to benefit 

when other countries take needed action to protect 

the global environment.
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11

tion. Agricultural R&D expenditures 

in these countries from all sources total 

only $1.5 billion annually. Given the 

high returns to public agricultural R&D, 

these trends imply missed opportunities 

that warrant reexamination of donor assistance priorities. 

The “Next Green

Revolution”

Future agricultural policy for this 

nation and, indeed, for all nations must 

include a strong commitment to science 

if the nations are to meet the coming 

challenges successfully. It is not sufficient to just understand the dynamics of 

the existing conditions and the factors 

that impact success; it is equally critical 

that agricultural policy identify satisfactory means of changing the dynamics 

based on information and knowledge. 

It is the responsibility of science to develop such information, knowledge, and 

technology through research to allow 

decision makers to make the changes 

that reflect the new realities of existing 

conditions. Dr. Borlaug clearly understood that science was a key part of 

agricultural policy to alleviate hunger 

in some regions of the world. That is 

why in his last writings he called for a 

“Second Green Revolution.”

Norman Borlaug’s work illustrates 

Thomas Edison’s maxim: “Success is 

10 percent inspiration and 90 percent 

perspiration.” Beginning in Mexico in 

1943, Dr. Borlaug—employing the latest developments in science and technology—used hard work, innovative 

techniques, and a great deal of perseverance to breed highly productive cultivars of wheat. The new cultivars led to 

increased productivity, personal income, 

and food availability for hundreds of 

millions of people in Mexico and South 

Asia from the mid-1960s to the 1990s. 

Increases in population and rising 

expectations have nearly expended this 

enhanced productivity, and today the 

world awaits a renewed green revolution. Innovative, yet classical plant 

breeding played a central role in the 

first green revolution and will continue 

to be needed, but biotechnology that 

generates GMOs will have an increasingly important role in the second and 

future green revolutions. The following 

list suggests additional areas of ongoing 

scientific research that—if successful—

will improve agricultural productivity 

worldwide. (More complete descriptions of these topics are provided in the 

Appendix.)

• Enabling C3

 plants to utilize the C4

photosynthetic pathway

• Introducing nitrogen fixation in 

nonlegumes

• Incorporating the process of apomixis into crop plants

• Enhancing water and nutrition efficiency of crop species

• Developing processes for more efficient conversion of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignocellulose to fuel

• Improving pest resistance in plants

• Improving energy efficiency of plants

• Developing commodities with increased health benefits

• Seeking new innovations

What is the Commitment

to Agricultural

Research to Bring

about Another Green

Revolution?

Evidence of the highly positive 

contribution of agricultural research to 

agricultural productivity growth is clear 

(Evenson and Gollins 2003). Hundreds 

of country-specific studies reported 

in professional agricultural economics literature (Alston et al. 2000) reveal 

a strong association between agricultural productivity improvements in a 

given year and spending on agricultural research and extension during the 

previous 30 years and more (Alston, 

Beddow, and Pardey 2008). 

In an era of intense budget scrutiny, 

at issue is how to pay for research and 

development to improve the productivity of agricultural resources. This report 

offers no definitive answers, but opportunities for U.S. government budget 

savings are apparent (see Textbox 3 for 

examples). Just as Borlaug labored for 

20 years before his wheat varieties were 

ready for widespread adoption, today’s 

support must be sustained for decades, 

to obtain high payoffs (Griliches 1964). 

Since the green revolution of the 

mid-1960s, significant assistance has 

been directed at developing-country 

agriculture, growing from $4.7 billion a 

year in 1973 (in 2002 dollars) to more 

than $12 billion a year in 1983–87. 

Approximately 3% of that amount went 

to support agricultural research, both 

in national programs and through the 

centers of the CGIAR. Beginning at essentially zero in 1970, development assistance for agricultural research by developing-country governments reached 

$456 million in 1983–87 (Herdt 2009).

From the mid-1980s until about 

2000, however, development assistance to agriculture was drastically and 

steadily cut from $12 billion to $4.8 billion, back to approximately the level of 

the 1970s. Aid for agricultural research 

fell along with aid for general agricultural development. Funding for the 

CGIAR centers grew from their creation 

in 1960 to approximately $40 million in 

1970 and further to approximately $300 

million in 1988 and then grew slowly 

thereafter. United States aid to agriculture followed the same general pattern 

over time, making up between 9 and 

14% of the Organization for Economic 

Co-operation and Development’s total. 

The sharp fall in aid to agriculture after 

1992 is difficult to explain in terms of 

Examples are the government 

programs to address instability, arguably the principal economic problem of 

commercial farmers. To address this 

very real problem, billions of dollars 

are spent each year on an array of 

fragmented and often redundant farm 

programs, including direct payments, 

countercyclical payments targeting 

mostly price, the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program targeting price and yield, the Supplemental 

Revenue Assistance (SURE) and ad 

hoc disaster assistance programs, 

marketing loans, loan deficiency 

payments, and myriad governmentsubsidized crop insurance programs. 

Consolidating these overlapping 

efforts into a cost-effective safety net 

could serve farmers while freeing 

billions of dollars to fund agricultural 

research and development. 

Textbox 3. Opportunities for U.S. 

government budget savings
12 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

needs. Whereas there was evidence of 

vigorous agricultural growth in Asia 

by the 1980s, the opposite was true in 

Africa. Since about the year 2000, there 

has been a gradual increase in aid to agriculture and agricultural research.

Globally, in 2005, public agencies 

invested $23 billion in agricultural research annually, a 50% increase over 

the 1981 level. In the United States and 

other high-income nations, the development of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-

related tools and intellectual property 

rights has permitted a great increase 

in the precision with which the products of plant breeding can be identified 

(Herdt 2006), leading to a rapid increase 

in private investments in breeding crop 

varieties. In 2005, private companies 

invested $16 billion annually in agricultural research, essentially all (96%) in 

the high-income countries of the world. 

The CGIAR is, of course, focused on 

developing countries, and its investment 

reached approximately $400 million 

annually by 2004 (Beintema and Stads 

2008), about 2.5% of what private companies invest in research in the more 

developed countries. 

In 2009, influential voices advised 

the new administration to increase its 

development assistance for agricultural 

research and education for developing 

countries (Bertini and Glickman 2009). 

The Obama Administration did declare 

its intention to increase aid substantially 

to help millions of the world’s poorest farmers grow enough food to feed 

themselves (Baker and Dugger 2009) 

and the leaders of industrialized countries, known as the G8, pledged increased aid to agriculture. The Bill and 

Melinda Gates Foundation is making 

substantial contributions to agricultural 

and nutritional research, particularly in 

Africa. 

Even assuming these aid efforts are 

successful, the authors contend that the 

United States will need to make additional investments to raise the productivity of U.S. agriculture, given the 

almost unlimited demand for liquid 

biofuel that can be unleashed by policies designed to reduce oil imports and 

the possible effects of global climate 

change. During the period 1950 to1970, 

percentage growth rate of U.S. public agricultural research and development spending approached 4% per year. 

It was less than 2% during the next 2 

decades and fell to approximately 1% 

during the period 1990 to 2007 (Alston, 

Beddow, and Pardey 2008). 

Any country and industry would be 

remiss not to have a contingency plan 

for a future in which global greenhouse 

gas control has failed, for whatever 

reason. Policies “for all seasons” are a 

critical backstop for agriculture; they 

include research on genetically modified cultivars to resist heat and drought 

stress, infrastructure to facilitate farm 

input and output movement, and open 

trade so that food can move from regions of abundant supply to regions of 

diminishing supply due to global warming. Because cropland is less promising 

than land in trees for carbon sequestration and climate control (trees sequester 

4 to 8 times more carbon than crops), 

a useful policy is to promote high crop 

yields to minimize crop area so that 

areas in forests can be retained and 

expanded.

Conclusions

Numerous factors are converging 

to make “the perfect storm” in global 

food and agriculture. While population 

growth rates are falling in most countries, global population is still increasing and national populations are expected to increase in many developing 

countries for the next several decades. 

Approximately 1 billion people in poor 

countries today do not receive enough 

dietary energy, and another billion do 

not get enough protein, fat, important 

minerals, or essential vitamins. In addition to those increasing demands for 

food from developing countries, developed countries are increasing their 

demands on agriculture for fuel and 

ecosystem services and to offset negative effects of technologies used in the 

current global industrial economy.

The United States has the land resources and the science capacity to 

equip American agriculture to meet a 

large portion of the coming challenges—if the nation takes the right policy 

steps. We must recognize that the era 

of living beyond our means is coming 

to an end, and the end of cheap, plentiful energy from petroleum is driving 

that demise. United States agriculture is 

being called on to supply much of that 

energy, but without substantial increases in research and development, those 

energy supplies will come at a huge 

cost. The potential may exist, but today’s technology is not able to convert 

potential into usable energy at a reasonable cost.

Agricultural supply of conventional 

commodities is of concern as well. The 

global annual average increments in 

crop and livestock yields for all major 

commodities have stagnated or declined in recent decades (Tweeten and 

Thompson 2009). At current commodity prices, the opportunities to meet food 

demands without additional cropland 

and irrigation are constrained. Global 

warming threatens to decrease agricultural production, especially in tropical and subtropical regions where most 

poor people live. 

The dire predictions of political economist Thomas Malthus have 

failed to materialize, but complacency 

is unwarranted given the many warning 

signs of tighter future agricultural supply–demand balance, rising real food 

prices, and the increasing role of agricultural commodities in meeting energy 

needs. The convergence of so many 

challenges at one time is unprecedented. 

Increasing the productivity of resources 

available to agriculture is critical. The 

typical lead time for investments in science and technology to raise agricultural productivity is 10 to 20 years; hence, 

delays in investment constitute a cost in 

foregone output a nation can ill afford.

Responding to needs is not solely 

the province of the President, Congress, 

industry leaders, and state governments. 

The public will have to actively support 

political action, particularly on such 

broad issues as global climate change, 

regulations on the welfare of animals 

in agriculture, natural resources, and 

investments in agricultural research and 

education. 

The greatest concern felt by the authors of this paper is the apparent lack 

of commitment by the United States 

and other countries to make the research 

and education expenditures needed 

to address the problems affecting our 

survival on this planet. Agriculture can 

provide the food we eat, the feed for 

our livestock and companion animals, 

fiber for our clothes and homes, "flowers" for the environment, and the fuel 
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13

we need—if we develop the needed information, knowledge, and technology 

through research and education. It will 

take a strong and constant public commitment to adequate funding. Indeed, 

we have no other alternative if we are to 

gain success. 

Appendix

The following examples suggest areas of ongoing scientific research that—

if successful—will improve agricultural productivity worldwide and could 

help to bring about the “Next Green 

Revolution.”

Example 1. Enabling C3

 Plants to 

Utilize the C4

 Photosynthetic Pathway

There are two basic forms of photosynthesis. In one form, the first compound resulting from photosynthesis 

has three carbons (3 phosphoglycerate), hence C3

 photosynthesis. In the 

other form of photosynthesis, the first 

compound is a four-carbon compound 

(oxaloacetate), hence C4

 photosynthesis 

(Hatch and Slack 1966). C4

 plants such 

as corn, sorghum, sugarcane, and bermudagrass are much more efficient at 

fixing carbon (producing more biomass 

such as grain, straw, or root mass) than 

C3

 plants are. The unique structure of 

C4

 plants enables them to divide the reactions of photosynthesis between two 

types of cells. This mechanism greatly 

decreases photorespiration, a process 

whereby “fixed carbon” is released to 

the atmosphere. Given that some of 

the most important crop plants such as 

wheat, soybeans, and rice are C3

, the 

capacity to convert C3

 plants into C4

plants holds great promise for increasing productivity.

Example 2. Introducing Nitrogen 

Fixation in Nonlegumes

Nitrogen fertilizers enable farmers to achieve the high yields that drive 

modern agriculture. The use of nitrogen 

fertilizer will continue to increase substantially as global population and food 

requirements grow. One of the most 

critical plant nutrients, nitrogen, alone 

comprises more than 78% of the atmosphere. Despite its abundance, nitrogen 

is not cheap when converted into a form 

useful to plants. Nitrogen fertilizer constitutes a major cost of producing crops 

such as corn and sorghum. Some major 

crops such as soybeans and alfalfa have 

the capacity to “fix” atmospheric nitrogen in a form that supports growth of 

the plant or, on decay, returns it to the 

soil profile for future crops. The symbiotic relationship of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in legumes that evolved through 

long periods of time is a complex process; however, finding a way to imbue 

nonlegumes to fix their own nitrogen 

would greatly stimulate productivity. 

Recent research in phytoplasmas could 

be a successful means of introducing nitrogen fixation in non-legumes by using 

the nitrogen-fixing mechanism of certain microbes that possess this capacity. 

In addition to developing crops that 

can biologically fix nitrogen, research 

should focus on increasing the efficiency with which crops are able to mine 

nitrogen from the soil. Plants with this 

high extraction efficiency require less 

nitrogen and also decrease potential 

contamination of groundwater from nitrogen fertilization. 

Example 3. Incorporating the 

Process of Apomixis into Crop Plants

The requirement of annual hybrid 

seed production can be circumvented 

by the process of apomixis, which is 

production of seed without fertilization 

by the male gamete in pollen grains, 

resulting in progenies identical to the 

seed-bearing hybrid plant. Hybrid vigor 

has enabled some crops to achieve an 

exceedingly high level of productivity as evidenced by hybrid varieties of 

corn. Unfortunately, the development 

of hybrids such as corn is expensive 

because of the requirements for planting different inbred lines to produce the 

hybrid seed every year. Without this 

annual reproduction of first-generation 

hybrid seed, productivity in subsequent 

generations would continually decline 

due to inbreeding depression. This practice would enable hybrid crop plants to 

maintain hybrid vigor at no additional 

cost (i.e., the annual hybrid seed production field is unnecessary if the hybrid plant is apomictic.)

Example 4. Enhancing Water and 

Nutrition Efficiency of Crop Species

Given the potential for global climate change, improving efficiency of 

production assets and improving plant 

and animal tolerance to adverse growing conditions and stress become important considerations. Several approaches 

are possible. For example, breeding 

plants with greater drought, heat, or 

submergence tolerance is a long-sought 

goal.11 Water is an increasingly important factor in agricultural productivity 

in many regions of the world. There are 

estimates that 40% of corn crop losses 

are due to a lack of water (Boyer 1982; 

Boyer and Westgate 2004). Water will 

become a more serious factor affecting 

productivity with further progression of 

global climate change. Considerable 

research is under way that holds promise of conferring remarkable levels of 

drought tolerance to corn (Castiglioni et 

al. 2008; Nelson et al. 2007).

Soil salinity is one of the major 

abiotic stresses impacting agricultural productivity in many parts of the 

world. The problem is exacerbated by 

irrigating with water that has high salt 

concentrations. Two main approaches 

to improving crop salt tolerance are (1) 

developing more salt-tolerant cultivars 

through natural genetic variation either through direct selection in stressful environments or through mapping 

quantitative trait loci and (2) subsequent 

marker-assisted selection. Another approach is through the generation of 

transgenic plants to introduce novel 

genes or to alter expression levels of existing genes (Yamaguchi and Blumwald 

2005).12

Recent developments suggest the 

possibility of sustainable bioenergy production through pyrolysis of biomass 

with the use of the biochar co-product 

as a soil amendment, which may increase nutrient and water use efficiency 

and enhance productivity especially for 

11 An excellent example of overcoming stress is 

the recent identification of a tolerant-specific allele 

named Sub1A-1 and an intolerance-specific allele 

named Sub1A-2. Over-expression of Sub1A-1 in a 

submergence-intolerant species conferred enhanced 

tolerance to flooding in the rice genus Oryza (Xu 

et al. 2006). Introduction of the genetic material 

Sub1A-1 into current cultivars of rice gave these 

new varieties tolerance to submergence for up to two 

weeks. 

12 Salt tolerance in plants can be enhanced by 

increasing solute concentrations in the vacuoles of 

plant cells thereby increasing the vacuolar osmotic 

potential. This would result in a decrease of the 

cellular water potential such that it would favor 

water movement from the soil into the plants (He et 

al. 2005).
14 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

degraded and problematic soils (Laird et 

al. 2009).

Example 5. Developing Processes 

for More Efficient Conversion 

of Cellulose, Hemicellulose, and 

Lignocellulose to Fuel 

It is becoming more commonly accepted that a portion of agricultural 

output will be used to produce readily usable forms of energy such as 

transportation fuels and bioproducts. 

Conversion of sugar to ethanol using yeast fermentation is one means of 

converting an agricultural product to a 

usable energy form. This conversion 

is done in Brazil using sugarcane and 

in the United States using corn (after 

hydrolyzing starch to sugar). A major 

research effort is under way to develop 

effective and efficient means of converting cellulosic biomass directly to transportation fuels and various bioproducts. 

This approach would permit the use of 

nonfood biomass and many types of 

waste that presently are not being used 

for productive purposes.

Example 6. Improving Pest 

Resistance in Plants

Considerable progress has been 

made in developing plants with resistance to certain insects and diseases. 

The Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene 

is an excellent example, but only the 

beginning. This type of plant improvement alone will not bring about another 

green revolution, but certainly could 

contribute. Scientists must continue 

to seek new and novel ways of giving 

plants desirable traits, such as the use 

of phytoplasmas. Although infection of 

a plant by phytoplasmas often causes a 

disease, phytoplasmas have great potential for introducing genetic material into 

plants that can express a desired outcome, such as pest resistance. The classical means of incorporating new genes 

into plant cells is by using the bacterium 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Of course, 

in either case, the undesirable aspects 

caused by these organisms must be disarmed. 

Another novel approach involves 

the development of a different mode 

of action by using a process called ribonucleic acid (RNA) interference 

(RNAi) by such organisms as Bt. This 

would be valuable for managing insect 

resistance. For example, ingestion of 

double-stranded RNAs supplied in an 

artificial diet triggers RNA interference 

in several coleopteran species, leading 

to larval stunting or mortality (Baum et 

al. 2007). Additional research in these 

approaches is warranted.

Example 7. Improving Energy 

Efficiency of Plants 

Plants are quite inefficient in capturing energy from the sun. Calculations 

show that less than 3% of sunlight absorbed by the leaf is converted to chemical energy; frequently, it is less than 

1%. This number is in contrast with 

photo voltaic cells (solar panels) that 

routinely capture 10 to 15% of light. 

With new technology in solar panels, 

efficiency may become even greater, 

up to 20%. Most crops capture light 

in the range of 400 to 700 nanometers 

(nm). On the other hand, throughout 

nature there are organisms that capture 

light from 400 to 900 nm. The light 

harvesting mechanism (grana) of crops 

could be improved through genetic engineering. Genes could be transferred to 

improve energy efficiency either by enhancing the light-harvesting capabilities 

or by expanding the wavelength of light 

being captured. 

Example 8. Developing Commodities 

with Increased Health Benefits

Another means of enhancing agricultural productivity is by developing “better” commodities. This may 

include food commodities that have 

unique properties such as increased 

health benefits. Recent advances in 

several areas of basic sciences provide 

an optimistic basis for developing foods 

with unique and desirable properties 

such as a specific amino acid profile 

or particular antioxidants, vitamins, or 

minerals. Once such desirable traits are 

identified, they can be incorporated into 

an array of foods to meet dietary and 

ethnic requirements. Vegetables, fruits, 

and nuts especially contain many of the 

highly desirable nutrients and properties 

that contribute to a healthy diet. 

Example 9. Seeking New Innovations 

that Offer Possibilities

In addition to the foregoing ideas 

that represent areas of ongoing research 

that could contribute to the next green 

revolution, the authors are quick to offer the possibility of other innovative 

ideas. For example, the emerging discipline of phonemics13 could provide 

the basis of quantum increases in plant 

efficiency. Another promising technology is bioengineered algae that convert 

the carbon dioxide waste from coalfired plants into biofuel. One of the 

greatest opportunities for powering the 

next green revolution is “farming the 

world’s oceans.” When considering the 

simple fact that there is a lot of ongoing 

photosynthesis in the oceans and recognizing the tremendous expanse of the 

oceans, it is not surprising that developing farming practices for ocean crops 

would provide a quantum increase in 

agricultural output. Although there are 

many approaches that could be considered, developing floating perennial 

crops that produce seeds or biomass 

holds great promise. 

And researchers should not overlook the micro innovations that could 

bring about environmental adjustments 

that taken individually have only a 

modest impact, but combined can have 

a tremendous impact. These innovations 

include such things as improved tillage 

systems, better irrigation efficiency, new 

crop species, and more effective use of 

manures. 

Literature Cited

Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC). 

2001. An Analytic Database of U.S. 

Agriculture. Staff Paper Series No. 01-1. 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Alston, J. M., J. M. Beddow, and P. G. Pardey. 

2008. Agricultural research, productivity 

and food commodity prices. Agricultural and Resource Economics Update, 

Giannini Foundation of Agricultural 

Economics, University of California 

12(2):11–14.

Alston, J. M., C. Chan-Kang, M. C. Marra, 

P. G. Pardey, and T. J. Wyatt. 2000. A 

meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R&D: Ex-pede herculem? Research 

Report 113. International Food Policy 

Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

13 While genomics is the study of a genome of a 

given species and proteomics is the study of a species’ entire complement of proteins, phenomics is 

that branch of science that integrates all available 

information into a holistic picture of the species. It 

is the systemic study of phenotypes on a genomewide basis, usually implying a high-throughput 

approach of capturing phenotypes and associating 

those phenotypes with either genomic or proteomic 

differences.
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15

Baker, P. and C. W. Dugger. 2009. Obama 

Enlists Major Powers to Aid Poor Farmers 

with $15 Billion New York Times July 9. 

Baum, J. A., T. Bogaert, W. Clinton, G. R. 

Heck, P. Feldmann, O. Hagan, S. Johnson, 

G. Plaetinck, T. Munyikwa, M. Pleau, 

T. Vaugh, and J. Roberts. 2007. Control of coleopteran insect pests through 

RNA interference. Nature Biotechnol

25(11):1322–1326.

Beintema, N. M. and G.-J. Stads. 2008. Measuring Agricultural Research Investments: 

A Revised Global Picture. Agricultural 

Science and Technology Indicators Background Note, University of Minnesota: 6.

Bertini, C. and D. Glickman. 2009. Renewing 

American Leadership in the Fight against 

Global Hunger and Poverty. Chicago 

Council on Global Affairs, Chicago.

“Best of All Possible Worlds?” 2009. The 

Economist August 8–14, p. 68.

Borlaug, N. E. 2002. The Green Revolution 

Revisited and the Road Ahead. September, 

http://nobelprize.org/ (24 November 2009)

Borlaug, N. E. 2009. Letter to CAST, “Friday 

Notes,” January 9.

Boyer, J. S. 1982. Plant productivity and environment. Science 218:443–448.

Boyer, J. S. and M. E. Westgate. 2004. Grain 

yield with limited water. J Exp Bot 

55:2385–2394.

Brown, L. R. 1995. Who Will Feed China?

W.W. Norton, New York. 163 pp.

Castiglioni, P., D. Warner, R. J. Benson, D. 

C. Anstrom, J. Harrison, M. Stoecker, 

M. Abad, G. Kumar, S. Salvador, R. 

D’Ordine, S. Navarro, S. Back, M. 

Fernandes, J. Targolli, S. Dasgupta, 

C. Bonin, M. Luethy, and J. E. Heard. 

2008. Bacterial RNA chaperones confer 

abiotic stress tolerance in plants and 

improved grain yield in maize under 

water-limited conditions. Plant Physiol

147:446–455.

Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. 2007. Water for 

Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive 

Assessment of Water Management in 

Agriculture. London: Earthscan, and 

Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1973. Agricultural Science 

and the Public. Paper Number 1. CAST, 

Ames, Iowa. 

Eidman, V. R. 2006. Renewable liquid fuels: 

Current situation and prospects. Choices

21(1):15–19.

Evenson, R. E. and D. Gollins (eds.). 2003. 

Crop Variety Improvement and its Effects 

on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. CABI 

Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom. 

544 pp.

Evenson, R. E., C. E. Pray, and M. W. Rosegrant. 1999. Agricultural Research and 

Productivity Growth in India. International Food Policy Research Institute, 

Washington, D.C. 103 pp.

Falcon, W. and R. Naylor. 2005. Rethinking 

food security for the twenty-first century. 

Amer J Ag Econ 87:1113–1127.

Fan, S. and M. Agcaoili-Sombilla. 2002. Why 

projections on China’s future food supply and demand differ. Australian J Ag 

Resource Econ 41(2):169–190.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations (FAO), Statistics Division. 

2006. Food Security Statistics, 2006. FAO, 

Rome, http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/

foodsecurity/index_en_htm (2 September 

2009)

Gale, F. and S. Henneberry. 2009. Markets 

adapt to China’s changing diet. Choices

24(2):32–36.

Gardner, B. and W. Lesser. 2003. International 

agricultural research as a global public 

good. Amer J Ag Econ 85:692–697.

Griliches, Z. 1964. Research expenditures, 

education, and the aggregate agricultural 

production function. Amer Econ Rev 

LIV(Dec.):961–974.

Gulati, A. and G. Pursell. 2008. Distortions to 

Agricultural Incentives in India and Other 

South Asia. World Bank, Distortions to 

Agricultural Incentives Project, Washington, D.C. 56 pp.

Hatch, M. D. and C. R. Slack. 1966. Photosynthesis by sugarcane leaves. Biochem J

101:103–111.

He, C., J. Yan, G. Shen, L. Fu, A. S. Holaday, 

D. Auld, E. Blumwald, and H. Zhang. 

2005. Expression of an Arabidopsis vacuolar sodium/proton antiporter gene in cotton improves photosynthetic performance 

under salt conditions and increases fiber 

yield in the field. Plant and Cell Physiol

46:1848–1854.

Herdt, R. W. 2006. Biotechnology in agriculture. Annual Rev Environ Resources

31:265–295.

Herdt, R. W. 2009. Development Aid and 

Agriculture. Part 3. In R. Evenson and P. 

Pingali (eds.). Handbook of Agricultural 

Economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 

Huff, H. B., E. Krivonos, and D. van der 

Mensbrugghe. 2007. Review and synthesis of empirical results of studies of World 

Trade Organization agricultural trade 

reform. Ch. 2, vol. 2. In A. McCalla and J. 

Nash (eds.). Reforming Agricultural Trade 

for Developing Countries. World Bank, 

Washington, D.C.

Huffman, W. E. and R. E. Evenson. 2006. Do 

Formula or Competitive Grant funds have 

greater impacts on state agricultural productivity? Amer J Ag Econ 88:783–798.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

2009. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/

organization.htm (1 December 2009)

International Assessment of Agricultural 

Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. 2007. http://

www.agassessment.org/index.

cfm?Page=Overview&ItemID=3 (1 

December 2009)

Knutson, R., C. R. Taylor, J. Penson, and 

E. Smith. 1990. Economic Impacts of 

Reduced Chemical Use. Knutson and Associates, College Station, Texas. 72 pp.

Laird, D. A., R. C. Brown, J. E. Amonette, 

and J. Lehmann. 2009. Review of the 

pyrolysis platform for co-producing biooil and biochar. Biofuels, Bioprod, Bioref 

3:547–562.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. 

Overview of the Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/About.aspx (1 December 

2009)

Nelson, D. E., P. P. Repetti, T. R. Adams, R. 

A. Creelman, J. Wu, D. C. Warner, D. C. 

Anstrom, R. J. Bensen, P. P. Castiglioni, 

M. G. Donnarummo, B. S. Hinchey, R. W. 

Kumimoto, D. R. Maszle, R. D. Canales, K. A. Krolikowski, S. B. Dotson, N. 

Gutterson, O. J. Ratcliffe, and J. E. Heard. 

2007. Plant nuclear factor Y (NF-Y) B 

subunits confer drought tolerance and lead 

to improved corn yields on water limited 

acres. Proc National Academy of Sciences

104:16450–16455.

Rosenzweig, C. and D. Hillel. 2005. Climate 

change, agriculture, and sustainability. 

Chap. 10. In R. Lal, N. Uphoff, B. Stewart, and D. Hansen (eds.). Climate Change 

and Global Food Security. Taylor and 

Francis, Boca Raton, Florida. 808 pp.

Runge, C. F., B. Senauer, P. G. Pardey, and M. 

W. Rosegrant. 2003. Ending Hunger in 

Our Lifetime: Food Security and Globalization. The Johns Hopkins University 

Press for the International Food Policy 

Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland. 

288 pp.

Shah, T. and S. Verma. 2009. Real-time comanagement of electricity and groundwater. In V. R. Reddy and S. Singh (eds.). 

Changing Contours of Asian Agriculture: 

Policies, Performance and Challenges. 

Academic Foundation, Jaipur, India.

Sumner, D. A., J. T. Rosen-Molina, W. A. 

Matthews, J. A. Mench, and K. R. Richter. 

2008. Economic Effects of Proposed 

Restrictions on Egg-laying Hen Housing 

in California. University of California 

Agricultural Issues Center, Davis. 7 pp.

Tweeten, L. 1996. Is precision farming good 

for society? Better Crops Summer:3–5.

Tweeten, L. 2007. Prescription for a Successful 

Economy: The Standard Economic Model. 

iUniverse, Lincoln, Nebraska. 216 pp.
16 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

CAST Member Societies

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF VETERINARY AND COMPARATIVE TOXICOLOGY n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AVIAN PATHOLOGISTS n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PESTICIDE SAFETY 

EDUCATORS n AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND RESOURCES, AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE n AMERICAN BOARD OF VETERINARY 

TOXICOLOGY n AMERICAN DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n AMERICAN FORAGE AND GRASSLAND COUNCIL n AMERICAN MEAT SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL 

SOCIETY, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL FOREST METEOROLOGY n AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY n AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE 

n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE n AMERICAN SOCIETY 

OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS n AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION n AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT SOCIETY n ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL CROPS 

n ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL COLLEGES n COUNCIL OF ENTOMOLOGY DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATORS n INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS n NORTH 

AMERICAN COLLEGES AND TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURE n NORTH CENTRAL WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION 

n SOCIETY FOR IN VITRO BIOLOGY n SOCIETY OF NEMATOLOGISTS n SOUTHERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA n WESTERN SOCIETY OF WEED SCIENCE

The mission of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) is to assemble, interpret, and communicate credible science-based information 

regionally, nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private sector, and the public. CAST is a nonprofit organization composed 

of 30 scientific societies and many individual, student, company, nonprofit, and associate society members. CAST’s Board is composed of representatives of the scientific 

societies, commercial companies, nonprofit or trade organizations, and individual members, and an Executive Committee. CAST was established in 1972 as a result of a 

meeting sponsored in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. ISSN 1070-0021

Additional copies of this issue paper are available from CAST. Linda M. Chimenti, Director of Council Operations. World WideWeb: http://www.cast-science.org.

Citation: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2010. Agricultural Productivity Strategies for the Future: Addressing U.S. and Global 

Challenges. Issue Paper 45. CAST, Ames, Iowa. 

Tweeten, L. and S. Thompson. 2009. Longterm global agricultural output supplydemand balance, and real farm and food 

prices. Farm Policy J 6 (Feb. Quarter): 

1–15. 

United Nations, Population Division. 2008. 

World Population Prospects: The 2006 

Revision and World Urbanization Prospects. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. http://esa.un.org/

unpp (1 October 2009)

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). Energy 

Information Administration. 2009. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2009. Report No. DOE/

EIA-0383, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Foreign Agriculture Service (USFAS). 

2009. Production, Supply and Distribution 

online. http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/ (2 December 2009)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Summary of estimated water use in the United 

States. Fact Sheet Rep. 2009-3098. U.S. 

Department of Interior. 

U.S. Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website. 2005. http://usbiotechreg.

nbii.gov/ (2 December 2009)

Valdes, C. 2006. Brazil’s booming agriculture 

faces obstacles. Amber Waves 4(5):28–35.

World Bank. 2008. World Development Report, 

Agriculture for Development. The World 

Bank, Washington, D.C.

Xu, K., X. Xu, T. Fukao, P. Canlas, R. 

Maghirang-Rodriguez, S. Heuer, A. M. 

Ismail, J. Bailey-Serres, P. C. Ronald, and 

D. J. Mackill. 2006. Sub1A is an ethyleneresponse-factor-like gene that confers 

submergence tolerance to rice. Nature

442:705–708.

Yamaguchi, T. and E. Blumwald. 2005. Developing salt-tolerant crop plants: challenges 

and opportunities. Trends in Plant Science

10:615–620.
264

APPENDIX D

Power Point Presentations

PAGE

June 8, Day 1

Integration of competing concepts surrounding the 

ethical use of food animals

Wes Jamison, Palm Beach Atlantic University 266

Impressions from the agricultural community regarding 

food-animal welfare and agricultural regulation 

Greg Martin, The Pennsylvania State University 290

Historical perspective of the integration of animal agriculture

 Ron Plain, University of Missouri-Columbia 308

Consumer trust in the U.S. food system: Implications for 

communication and regulation 

Stephen G. Sapp, Iowa State University 402

Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future 

food-animal systems

Charlie Arnot, Center for Food Integrity 436

Janet Riley, American Meat Institute 471

Jay Vroom, CropLife America 493

JUNE 9, Day 2

Ethical and practical implications of food-animal agriculture

Paul Thompson, Michigan State University 519

Panel: How can we move forward? The need for a 

collaborative vision

Jack Fisher, Ohio Farm Bureau 554

Chandler Goule, National Farmers Union 574
265

Christine Bushway, Organic Trade Association 582

Joe Stookey, North American Food Animal Well-Being 598

Commission on Beef, University of Saskatchewan

JUNE 9, Day 2

Economic impact of transitioning from swine gestation stalls 

to group pen housing

Brian L. Buhr, University of Minnesota 611

Future welfare of farmers and their animals

John Deen, University of Minnesota 639

Panel: Comprehensive analysis of certification and regulatory 

programs: What is the future?

Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton, Mississippi State University 670

JUNE 10, Day 3

World and U.S. population growth: How can we feed everyone?

William Weldon, Elanco Animal Health 671

Should there be biotechnology in the future of animal agriculture?

L. Val Giddings, PrometheusAB, Inc. 688

Agricultural Productivity Strategies for the Future

Gale Buchanan, Former USDA Under Secretary 738

Sustainability myths and musts—key animal agriculture issues 

moving forward to 2050

Jason W. Clay, World Wildlife Fund-US 769

Trade considerations and OIE guidelines

Phil Seng, US Meat and Export Federation 816

JUNE 10, Day 3

Are the poor a recognized stakeholder?

Joseph Glauber, USDA Chief Economist 842

Are farmers and rural communities destined to be 

second-class citizens?

Paul Lasley, Iowa State University 861

NOTES 899
266

Integration of competing concepts surrounding the ethical use of 

food animals

Wes Jamison

Palm Beach Atlantic University
Integration of Competing Concepts 

Surrounding the Ethical Use of Animals

Wes Jamison, PhD

Palm Beach Atlantic University

University of Florida
Outline

• Disintegration

• Current Status

• What Integration 

Requires

• Potential ‘Futures’
Disintegration of Consensus 

(in no particular order)

• Growth of Urbanization

• Legitimacy of Philosophical Pluralism

• A Collapsing Cohesive World-View

• Collapse of Optimistic Scientific Humanism

• Disintegration of ‘Two Standards’Approach
Growth of Urbanization

• Obvious changing contact w/ animal 

farming

• Shifting mediating structures & 

institutions that organize and 

interpret reality

 Urban epistemology

 Lost Country Life & the cult of the pet

o Animal use mediated through nonconsumptive, pet-centric cognition
Legitimacy of Pluralism

No one, single 

privileged perspective

Reflected in 1st

Amendment
Worldview Collapse

• Pre-Industrial Revolution: relatively unified 

cosmological/epistemological/ethical view of animal 

roles and the human-animal relationship

 Cohesive anthropocentric consumptive instrumentalism

• Rising affluence & education plus philosophical 

development fostered critique

• Currently: post-modern free-for-all 
Worldview Collapse
Delegitimization of Optimistic 

Scientific Humanism

• Early View: Faith in science & technology

• Intercessor: Two world wars + ecological collapse + 

complexity

• Now: Pessimism/skepticism + caution
Disintegration of ‘Two 

Standards’ Approach

• Pre-Industrial Revolution

 Cohesive anthropocentric consumptive instrumentalism

• Post-Industrial Revolution

 Anthropocentirc consumptive instrumentalism + 

anthropocentric aesthetic instrumentalism

• Post-Industrialism

 Expansive aesthetic instrumentalism
Where Are We?
Competing Worldviews: old 

narrative

Anthropocentric 

instrumentalism
Old ‘welfare’

We can use animals as long as unnecessary pain and 

suffering are minimized
New ‘welfare’?
Where are we?

• For a significant majority of Americans, the role 

of animals in their lives changed

 From instrument used as tool and commodities to 

instrument used for human aesthetic purposes

o Companionship

o Entertainment

o Symbolic repositories of human virtue

Importantly, instrumentalism still extant but evolved
Where are we?

• The dominant, cohesive worldview regarding the 

role and utility of animals has faded

• No dominant, cohesive worldview has emerged

• What, exactly, is

an animal, and 

what is its role in 

our lives?
Where are we?

• A narrative ‘vacuum’ created wherein philosophers 

& interest groups provide a new narrative

• “Inherent interests = inherent rights”

• “Can they suffer?”

• Animals are not “ours”
Current Narratives

• The Mirror: animals reflect people, e.g. how we treat 

them shows us ourselves

• The Model: animals are perfect family members, 

e.g. malleable, compliant, transportable

• The Misanthrope: nature = good ...animals = natural 

...people = bad...people altering animals = bad

• The Muse: animals teach us how to be better humans
Recap

• Disintegration

• Current status
• Shared values

• Shared experiences

 In their absence, intractible conflict is to be expected

 No long-term policy solutions can be expected

What does Practical Integration of 

Competing Concepts Require?
• Learn to speak Spanish

 Coersive Isomorphism

• Food science + genetic engineering end run

 Science is universal ‘acid’ & pragmatic

 It is accepted because it ‘works’

 Current disarray merely ‘noise’ as we shift agricultural 

epochs

What does Future Integration Look 

Like?
• Development of tiered, boutique agriculture with 

continuing agrarian culture wars

• Continued muddling through

 Consumers and the lessons of BP

o Addicted to oil + pristine environment = out-ofsight drilling  “make it go away!”

o Consumers have a remarkable ability to rationalize

o The policy system absorbs perturbations & 

disruptions

o Necessity forces choices

What does Future Integration Look 

Like?
• Animals take nature we can’t use and convert it to 

nature we can

 Methods and locations will change

 Social ‘noise’ generated by disintegration will not 

overcome anthropocentric instrumentalism

Why Does Animal Agriculture 

Endure?
Summary

• Disintegration

• Current Status

• What Integration 

Requires

• Potential ‘Futures’
290

Impressions from the agricultural community regarding food-animal 

welfare and agricultural regulation

Gregory P. Martin

The Pennsylvania State University
IMPRESSIONS FROM THE

AGRICULTURAL

COMMUNITY REGARDING

FOOD-ANIMAL WELFARE

& AGRICULTURAL

REGULATION

Gregory P. Martin, Ph.D., PAS

The Pennsylvania State University Extension

Southeast Region
Setting the Table

• 309 Million to feed

• 2 % working to feed us = 6.2 million

• Farming environment is changing

– Fiscal, tax

– Environmental

– Production Practices

• What is the producer’s perspective in all this?
Tools Used 

• Questionnaire Built

• Canvassing via Survey Monkey

– Data Downloaded 21MAY2010

• Looking primarily for farmers and farm groups 

associated with animal agriculture

• Only a sample, not a cross-section !

• 1,077 questionnaires completed 
Demographics

Yes, 

55.7

No, 

44.3

50 Years or Older?
Demographics

Male, 

64.9

Female, 

35.1

Are You:

Yes, 

62.1

No, 

29

N/A, 

8.9 

Do You Raise Food 

Animals?
Demographics

0 10 20 30

Medium (51-450 acres)

I am Not Farming

Small

Large (451+ acres)

I prefer not to answer this

27.9

27.4

24.3

12.1

8.2

Percent

What Size is Your Farm?
Demographics

25

19.7

11.4

10.8

9.6

8.5

7.9

4.9

1.4

0.7

0.3

0 10 20 30

Independent Farmer

Cooperative Extension

Organic, Natural, Free Range Producer

Other 

Farm Bureau

Food Animal Veterinarians

Commodity Assoc. member/producer

The Grange

Animal Welfare Advocacy / producer

Farmers Union

CAST

Percent

Group Affiliation
Impressions

Very, 52.7

Somewhat, 

32.3

Not 

concerned, 

13.0

Not Sure, 2.0

How concerned are you about food animal welfare?
Impressions

Producer 

associations & 

farm groups, 51.8

Neither - change 

should come 

from market 

demand, 28.4

Elected legislative 

bodies, 12.7

Voters Via Ballot 

initatives, 7.2

Who Should Make Regulatory Decisions Related to Food 

Animal Ag?
Impressions

72.3

16.4

11.3

Do consumer food 

expectations match 

proposed & mandated 

demands placed on food 

animal producers?

No

Not Sure

Yes 

21.0 59.2

19.8

Do you think consumers are 

willing to pay for increased 

food costs due to 

certification or regulatory 

programs?

No

Not Sure

Yes
Impressions

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

None (detrimental to all farmers)

All farmers regardless of size

Large Size

Not sure

Small size

Medium size

25.5

23.8

23.1

18.5

7.5

1.7

What type of farmers do certification programs & 

regulations benefit most?
Impressions

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Severe

Moderate

Mild

Not sure

None

56.4

27.0

7.5

6.7

2.5

How much impact do you think animal welfare 

initiatives, propositions & other legal mandates have on 

small communities & the rural infrastructure?
Impressions

58.8 18.9

18.7

3.6

In general, what impact does consolidation of food 

animal industries have on rural communities?

Negative

Not Sure

Positive

None
0 20 40 60 80 100

Small

Medium

Large

17.5

39.0

21.0

52.5

46.0

49.9

Farm Size

What Impact do animal welfare ballot initiatives & 

Propositions have on farms of size/scale ?

None

Mild

Moderate

Severe

Not Sure
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Increased cost of products

Decreased # of producers

Create a change in quantity of products

Increased concentration of Ag

Create a change in the quality of products ...

Not sure

No change

85.3

77.4

49.7

43.4

34.9

6.0

0.8

What are the unintended consequences of current and 

proposed animal welfare ballot initiatives on the structure of 

agriculture? (select all)
Comments – 454 entered

• “Regretfully there are still some producers who do not understand the animal 

welfare issue and there are others (i.e. - consumers, politicians, and others) 

who think they know animal welfare but do not understand or work with 

animals. The animal industry must police its self if they want to have affective 

and rational requirements.”

• “I don't think that I have enough knowledge about the entire situation to make 

an intellegent[sic] response. I do know that I do not eat the cattle we raise 

because they seem like pets. When I eat a steak from the store, there is no 

sentiment. Slaughter of any animal makes me sad, but animals and grain have 

been a means of income in my family for many years. For an animal to give it's 

life to nurture mankind is a supreme sacrifice. I don't think the world is ready 

to become vegan at this date. Thank you.”
Thank 

You !

Gregory P. Martin, Ph.D., PAS

Pennsylvania State University

gpm10@psu.edu

http://drbirdnotes.blogspot.com/
308

Historical perspective of the integration of animal agriculture

Ron Plain

University of Missouri-Columbia
Ron Plain, Ph.D.

D. Howard Doane Professor

Dept. of Agricultural & Applied Economics

University of Missouri-Columbia

http://web.missouri.edu/~plainr/

Historical Perspective of the 

Integration of Animal 

Agriculture

CAST Food-Animal Ag Symposium 

June 8, 2010 Washington, D.C.
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer & bigger operations

3. Specialized farms

4. Integration

5. Contracting 

6. More efficient

7. Shrinking footprint
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production
U.S. Beef Production, 1960-2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1960196519701975198019851990199520002005

Billion Pounds

Source: USDA-NASS

U.S. beef production has increased by 81% since 1960
U.S. Milk Production, 1960-2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1960196519701975198019851990199520002005

Billion Pounds

Source: USDA-NASS

U.S. milk production has increased by 54% since 1960
 

Source: USDA-NASS

U.S. pork production has increased by 112% since 1960
U.S. Broiler Production, 1960-2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1960196519701975198019851990199520002005

Billion Pounds

Source: USDA-NASS

U.S. broiler production has increased by 719% since 1960
U.S. Turkey Production, 1960-2009

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1960196519701975198019851990199520002005

Billion Pounds

Source: USDA-NASS

U.S. turkey production has increased by 595% since 1960
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why is production expanding?

A. More Americans to feed

our population grows about 1% per 

year
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why is production expanding?

A. More Americans

B. Increased per capita consumption
U.S. Per Capita Meat Consumption

Retail Weight, 1960-2009

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

60657075808590950005

Pounds

In 2007, the average American consumed 60 

pounds (34%) more meat than in 1960
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why is production expanding?

A. More Americans

B. Increased per capita consumption

C. Increased exports

in 1960 the U.S. exported 161,306 

tons of meat; last year we exported 

6.7 million tons of meat
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding Production

2. Fewer & bigger operations
U.S. Farms with Beef Cows 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Source: USDA/NASS

Declining by 1.2% per year
Beef Cows Per U.S. Cow Farm

0

10

20

30

40

50

198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Head

Source: USDA/NASS
U.S. Farms with Milk Cows 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

197419771980198319861989199219951998200120042007

Source: USDA/NASS

Declining by 5.8% per year
Milk Cows Per U.S. Dairy Farm

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

197419771980198319861989199219951998200120042007

Head

Source: USDA/NASS
 

Source: USDA-NASS

Declining by 8.5% per year
 

Source: USDA-NASS
Farms Selling Broilers, 1954-2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

195419591964196919741978198219871992199720022007

Source: US Census of Agriculture
Broilers Sold Per Farm

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

195419591964196919741978198219871992199720022007

Birds

Source: US Census of Agriculture
Number of U.S. Farms Raising Chickens

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

191019151920192519301935194019451950195419591964196919741978198219871992199720022007

Source: US Census of Agriculture

Declining by 4.1% per year
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why fewer and bigger operations?
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why fewer and bigger operations?

A. Deflating livestock prices
Slaughter Steer Prices, 1960-2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Dollars Per Hundredweight

Source: USDA/AMS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

1967 $ Per Hundredweight

actual price

deflated price
Milk Prices, 1960-2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Dollars Per Hundredweight

Source: Wisconsin, All Milk Prices

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

1967 $ Per Hundredweight

actual price

deflated price
Slaughter Hog Prices, 1960-2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Dollars Per Hundredweight

Source: Terminal Markets, live weight 

0

5

10

15

20

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

1967 $ Per Hund

actual price

deflated price
Wholesale Egg Prices, 1960-2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Cents Per Dozen

Source: USDA/AMS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Cents Per Dozen

actual price

deflated price
Chicken Prices, 1960-2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Cents Per Pound

Source: USDA/AMS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Cents Per Pound

actual price

deflated price
Turkey Prices, 1960-2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Cents Per Pound

Source: USDA/AMS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Cents Per Pound

actual price

deflated price
From 1960 to 2009, the deflated 

average farm price of.....

• Cattle declined by 56%

• Milk declined by 48%

• Hogs declined by 69%

• Eggs declined by 68%

• Chickens declined by 61%

• Turkeys declined by 74%
Since livestock prices have failed to 

keep up with inflation, producers 

have two basic choices....... live on 

less money year after year, or raise 

more animals.
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why fewer and bigger operations?

A. Deflating livestock prices

B. Economies of size
Economies of Size

For most U.S. farms, 

getting bigger means they can:

- Buy lower

- Sell higher

- Be more efficient
Pigs Per Litter By Herd Size - 2009

Herd Size Pigs/Litter

1-99 7.38

100-499 8.13

500-999 8.50

1000-1999 9.15

2000-4999 9.55

5000 & up 9.70

Source: USDA Hogs & Pigs Reports
Percent of Firms That Made a Profit 

in 2006

100

96

89

88

83

82

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

500+

50-500

10-50

5-10

3-5

1-3

Percent

Firm Size

(1,000 head mktd. annually)

U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 

University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why fewer and bigger operations?

A. Deflating livestock prices

B. Economies of size

C. Labor utilization

$10/hour jobs and $100/hour jobs -

on a small farm the owner does 

both
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer & bigger operations

3. Specialized farms
Portion of U.S. Farms with Livestock

1950 1964 1978 1992 2007

Sheep 6.0% 7.4% 3.6% 4.2% 3.8%

Beef 75.5% 72.3% 38.5% 41.7% 34.7%

Hogs 56.0% 34.2% 18.0% 9.9% 3.4%

Dairy 67.8% 35.9% 12.6% 8.1% 3.2%

Chicken 78.3% 38.3% 9.7% 4.6% 6.6%

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture
Portion of U.S. Farms Marketing Crops

1964 1974 1992 2002 2007

Corn 43.8% 31.9% 26.2% 16.4% 15.8%

Wheat 23.4% 19.9% 15.2% 8.0% 7.3%

Soybeans 17.7% 22.8% 19.8% 14.9% 12.7%

Cotton 10.3% 1.7% 1.8% 1.2% 0.8%

Tobacco 10.5% 8.0% 6.5% 2.7% 0.7%

Orchards 7.1% 4.6% 6.0% 5.3% 5.3%

Vegetables 4.2% 3.4% 3.2% 2.6% 3.1%

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why are farms specializing?

You can’t learn to do 50 things as well 

as you can learn to do 10 things.
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer & bigger operations

3. Specialized farms

4. Integration
Livestock Integration

• Vertical integration – bringing together 

different stages of the production process 

under common ownership

Livestock production used to be closely linked 

to crop production

Now livestock production is often linked to 

packing
U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006

University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics,

and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

9.4

23

27

6.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1994 1997 2000 2006

Vertical Integration in U.S. Hog

Production & Packing %
Livestock Integration

• Advantages of being a producer/packer

– Offsetting profitability

– Coordination

• Quantity

• Traceability

• Disadvantages of being a producer/packer

– Investment

– Complexity

– Lack of flexibility
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer & bigger operations

3. Specialized farms

4. Integration

5. Contracting
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer & bigger operations

3. Specialized farms

4. Integration

5. Contracting

A. Production contracts
What is a Production Contract?

• An arrangement where one person/firm owns an 

animal and another person/firm owns the 

production facility where the animal is raised
Production Contracts

• 90% of U.S. chickens are raised by farmers who 

own no chickens

• Three-fourths of U.S. turkeys are raised by 

farmers who own no turkeys

• 46% of U.S. hogs are raised by farmers who own 

no hogs

Because of production contracts, many selfemployed farmers make a living raising livestock and 

poultry without having to own livestock or poultry.
Firm Size

(thousand 

head mktd.)

Farrowed Finished

1997 2000 2003 2006 1997 2000 2003 2006

1 - 50 1% 2% 7% 1% 8% 3% 5% 7%

50 - 500 4% 7% 5% 4% 7% 10% 11% 14%

500+ 11% 13% 17% 15% 16% 21% 25% 25%

Total 17% 22% 23% 20% 30% 34% 41% 46%

Percent of U.S. Hogs Raised under Contract, 

1997-2006

U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 

University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why production contracts?

• Benefits to contractors

– reduces capital requirements

– shares production risk 

– shifts site risk to grower

• Benefits to growers:

– reduces capital requirements

– shares production risk

– shifts market risk to contractor
U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2003 

University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board, 

Monsanto Choice Genetics, and Land O’ Lakes.

How satisfied are hog producers?

Firm Type

Satisfaction Rating

1 = very dissatisfied

6 = very satisfied

Independent 3.7

Contractors 4.7

Growers 4.9
Grower Benefits from Production Contracts

Lawrence & Grimes 2001 Hog Survey

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percent of 

Responses

1 2 3 4 5 6

1=No Benefit 6=Major Benefit

Access to Capital Additional Expansion
Grower Benefits from Production Contracts

Lawrence & Grimes 2001 Hog Survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent of 

Responses

1 2 3 4 5 6

1=No Benefit 6=Major Benefit

Lower Cost of Production Reduced Risk
Iowa Farrow to Finish Profits,

1965-2009

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

$ Per Head

Source: John Lawrence, Iowa State University
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer & bigger operations

3. Specialized farms

4. Integration

5. Contracting

A. Production contracts

B. Marketing contracts
 
Marketing Barrows & Gilts 2009

– Sell them (76%)

• Live weight (3%) or carcass weight (73%)

• Negotiated (11%) or formula price (65%)

• Contract formula (65%)

– Futures market (7%)

– Cutout value (6%)

– Feed cost (3%)

– Published hog price (40%)

– Other (10%) 

– Butcher them (24%)

• Eat the pork (<0.1%)

• Sell the pork (24%)
Marketing Contracts

• Why are producers using marketing 

contracts?

– It simplifies their life

• Lower transactions costs

– It assures shackle space

– In some cases, it reduces price risk

– It increases producer income

– Acquire additional carcass data

– Easier to get financing
Marketing Contracts

• Why are packers offering marketing 

contracts?

– It simplifies their life

• Lower transactions costs

– It assures a supply of known animals

– In some cases, it reduces price risk

– Improves trace ability

– It provides them a better animal
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer & bigger operations

3. Specialized farms

4. Integration

5. Contracting

6. More efficient
adjusted for live imports & exports

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Pounds

U.S. Beef&Veal Production Per Cow, 1960-2009
0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Pounds

U.S. Milk Production Per Cow, 1960-2009

Source: USDA/NASS
Annual U.S. Pork Production Per Sow, 1960-2009

adjusted for live imports & exports

1,200

1,700

2,200

2,700

3,200

3,700

4,200

1960196519701975198019851990199520002005

Pounds
Iowa Farrow to Finish Cost of Production,

1981-2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

$ Per Cwt

Source: John Lawrence, Iowa State University
Iowa Deflated Cost of Production,

1981-2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

$ Per Cwt

Source: John Lawrence, Iowa State University
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why more efficient?

A. Knowledge accumulates
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Why more efficient?

A. Knowledge accumulates

B. New technology

Technology is neither good nor 

bad, nor is it neutral.
Firm Size

(thousand head 

mktd. annually) 

1997 2000 2003 2006

1 - 3 10% 23% 23% 22%

3 - 5 21% 33% 66% 69%

5 - 10 39% 40% 79% 79%

10 - 50 58% 65% 91% 88%

50 - 500 75% 95% 98% 100%

500+ 84% 91% 100% 100%

Litters Sired by Artificial Insemination

1997, 2000, 2003, 2006

U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 

University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

1. Expanding production

2. Fewer & bigger operations

3. Specialized farms

4. Integration

5. Contracting 

6. More efficient

7. Shrinking footprint
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Shrinking footprint

A. Less land, less runoff

Indoor production

1960: fewer than 10% hogs

2006: 94% of hogs



Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Shrinking footprint

A. Less land, less runoff

B. Healthier animals

indoor production protects 

animals from weather, parasites 

& disease carriers
Swine Health Historical Perspective 

(Considerations provided by TJ Fangman)

Trichinella Prevalence Int & Ext Resp Enteric Repro 

YEAR (Human cases/yr) Parasites Disease Disease Disease FE ADG

2000’s <0.001% (<12 cases/yr)** +/- ++ + ++ <2.85 1.85+

(Confined Production) (PRRSv) (PRRSv)

1980’s 0.125% (100 cases/yr)* ++ +++ +++ +++ 3.40 1.65

(Hog Cholera eradicated) (SMEDI Etiology determined)

1960’s 0.66% (200 cases/yr)* +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ 3.70 1.50

1920-1940 1.41% (300 cases/yr)* ++++++ +++++ ++++++ ++++++ 4.0 1.35

**www.wrongdiagnosis.com

*CDC Trichinellosis Surveillance---United States, 1997-2001;52(SS06);1-8, 7-25-03 

Disease of Swine 5th Ed 1975
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Shrinking footprint

A. Less land, less runoff

B. Healthier animals

less death loss
Broiler Death Loss

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1950196019701980199020002005

Percent

Source: National Chicken Council
Canadian Pre-Weaning Death Loss, 

1996-2009

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Percent
Pigs Per Sow Per Year, 1960-2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

1960196519701975198019851990199520002005

Head
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Shrinking footprint

A. Less land, less runoff

B. Healthier animals

C. Less feed & less manure
pounds of feed per pound of growth

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1950196019701980199020002005

Pounds

Source: National Chicken Council

Broiler Feed Conversion, 1950-2005
Whole Herd Feed Conversion, 1991-2005

pounds of feed per pound of growth

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005

Pounds

Source: Missouri family hog farm

2.1% improvement per year
Hog Feed Conversion: 45 lbs. to Market

pounds of feed per pound of growth

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

1986-901991-951996-002001-05

Pounds

Source: Large hog integrator

0.9 % improvement per year
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

U.S. pork production is growing 3 times 

as fast as hog feed consumption and 

hog manure production.
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Shrinking footprint

A. Less land, less runoff

B. Healthier animals

C. Less feed & less manure

D. Fewer & wealthier farmers
U.S. Household Income, 1960-2008

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1960196519701975198019851990199520002005

$

Farm-nfi Farm-arms U.S. Average

Source: USDA/ERS

Farmers $18,374 

above avg in 2008

Farmers $2,173 

below avg in 

1960
Long Running Trends in Animal Agriculture

Shrinking footprint

A. Less land, less runoff

B. Healthier animals

C. Less feed & less manure

D. Fewer and wealthier farmers

E. Consumers
Retail Price of Meats, 1960-2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

19601963196619691972197519781981

198419871990199319961999200220052008

Cents Per Pound

Beef Pork Chicken Turkey
Deflated Retail Price of Meats

1960-2009, 1967 $

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

19601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999200220052008

Cents Per Pound

Beef Pork Chicken Turkey
From 1960 to 2009, the Deflated 

Average Retail Price of....

• Beef decreased by 27%

• Pork decreased by 31%

• Chicken decreased by 58%

• Turkey decreased by 65%
U.S. Meat Expenditures, 1970-09

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1970198019902000

% DPI

Source: Livestock Marketing Information Center

In 2009, the average American spent 1.61% of their 

income to buy 210 lbs of red meat and poultry

In 1970, the average American 

spent 4.2% of their income to buy 

194 lbs of red meat and poultry
Questions?
402

Consumer trust in the U.S. food system: Implications for 

communication and regulation

Stephen G. Sapp

Iowa State University
Consumer Trust in the 

U.S. Food System

Implications for Communication and Regulation

Dr. Stephen Sapp

Department of Sociology, Iowa State University

The Center for Food Integrity

CMA Consulting

Gestalt, Inc.

MarketSense, Inc.
The U.S. Food System

 The U.S. food system provides a large quantity 

of safe, wholesome, and relatively inexpensive 

food to hundreds of millions of persons.

 This system faces real and perceived 

challenges to its credibility arising from:

 More complex food chains.

 More complex food processing.

 More food imports.

 More direct threats to its safety.
The U.S. Food System

 These challenges are further complicated by 

the fact that U.S. consumers want to be actively 

involved in making food-related policy, but most 

are geographically and conceptually far 

removed from the food system.

 Most persons live off the farm.

 Most persons do not know how food is 

produced, processed, and distributed.
Sociological Problem

 Therefore, we have a critical societal system that:

 faces significant challenges, and

 is guided in part by citizens with little 

knowledge about it.

 This mismatch requires that citizens place much 

trust in representatives of the U.S. food system.
Sociological Problem

How can food system representatives communicate

with the public to instill trust?

or, said more broadly:

How can critical social systems work effectively in a 

large, complex society?
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Horn #1: Let the experts decide.

 Because most citizens do not understand the 

great complexity of the U.S. food system, 

they might be best off leaving decisions to 

the experts.

 The solution to risk communication, 

therefore, might be to “Let science be the 

guide for policy regarding the U.S. food 

system.”
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 This approach has some advantages because 

consumers are:

 Ignorant: One cannot help but be.

 Skeptical: This comes naturally.

 Untrusting: Citizens should be!

 Too often, however, representatives of the U.S. 

food system assume that ignorant, skeptical, 

untrusting consumers are irrational, irresponsible, 

and unreasonable ones.
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Relating to consumers in this manner is not an 

effective way to instill trust.

 The bottom line: We all are ignorant, skeptical, 

and untrusting. In a democracy, all citizens are 

allowed by law to participate in policy formation.

 Therefore, Horn #1 cannot easily be resolved 

because consumers cannot be asked to sit down 

and shut up.
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Horn #2: “Educate Consumers.”

 This approach makes sense and appeals to 

our sense of shared democracy.

 It is without doubt a necessary component of 

risk communication.

 But it has limitations:
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Horn #2: “Educate Consumers.”

 The paradox of democracy: There are lots of 

cooks in the kitchen and experts disagree.

 All technologies are flawed and all have 

negative consequences for some segments 

of the population.

 In the short run, negative information carries 

disproportionate weight.
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Horn #2: “Educate Consumers.”

 All technologies, whether they are 

associated with large, commercial agriculture 

or small, “sustainable” agriculture, have 

limitations.

 When these limitations are made public, the 

public becomes skeptical.
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Horn #2: “Educate Consumers.”

 Therefore, educating consumers can actually 

decrease trust rather than increase it!

 The bottom line: Education is a necessary 

component of risk communication, but not a 

sufficient one to instill trust.

 Therefore, Horn #2 cannot easily be resolved 

because negative information has 

disproportionate weight.
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Horn #3: “Blame the Media.”

 This approach has intuitive appeal because 

media reports “amplify” negative information.

 It sometimes can seem unreasonable to 

have to respond to media reports on 

statements that have little scientific merit.
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Horn #3: “Blame the Media.”

However, one must accept that:

 The media has a job to do.

 The media has ethical responsibilities to 

report both sides.

 Most of the time, media representatives act 

responsibly.
The Risk Communication Trilemma

 Horn #3: “Blame the Media.”

 The bottom line: Blaming the media does not 

instill trust.

 Therefore, Horn #3 cannot easily be resolved 

because the democracy we desire requires 

protection of free speech.
The Risk Communication: Solution

 Diffusion of Innovations Approach

 This approach has been well known and 

well researched for over 50 years.

 The approach has been implemented 

successfully in thousands of applications 

worldwide for many years.

 This approach offers a solution to the risk 

communication trilemma.
The Risk Communication: Solution

 Diffusion of Innovations Approach

1. Identify opinion leaders: Trusted, respected, 

third-party persons/organizations.

2. Obtain endorsements from opinion leaders.

 Opinion leaders beat the trilemma by 

instilling trust upon representatives of the 

societal system. Through their 

endorsements, they “deem” representatives 

to be trustworthy.
The Risk Communication: Solution

 Diffusion of Innovations Approach

This approach works, but begs the questions:

1. How do opinion leaders gain trust?

2. How can representatives of the U.S. food 

system gain trust, apart from endorsements 

from opinion leaders?
Risk Communication: Trust!

1. What are the key determinants of public trust in 

the U.S. food system?

2. What actions can institutional actors, whether 

established or new, large or small, take to gain 

and retain public trust?
The Sociological Approach

 Here are just some of the variables used to 

explain consumer trust in the U.S. food system: 

perceived risks stigma

complexity alienation

age perceived benefits

familiarity relative advantage

value similarity sex and gender

anomie compatibility

source credibility trialability

observability race and ethnicity

income prior exposure

media attention education.....
The Sociological Approach

 Of course, a simpler model would be preferable!

 We seek a model that:

1. explains much of the variance in trust,

2. with just a few variables,

3. that are easily understood, and 

4. actionable.
Consumer Trust Model

 A diagram of the Consumer Trust Model:

 Where Compliance refers to willingness to heed 

the recommendations of others. This variable is 

used to evaluate the external validity of the 

measure of trust, as an indicator of commitment 

to a source of information.

Competence

Confidence

Trust Compliance
Testing the Consumer Trust Model

 Nationwide survey of 2,008 adults (2007-2009).

 Measurements on competence, confidence, 

trust, compliance, and statistical controls.

 Five areas of the U.S. food system: food safety, 

nutrition, worker care, environmental protection, 

animal welfare.

 7-9 pertinent representatives within each area 

(e.g., producers, processors, grocers, 

regulators, restaurants, advocacy groups).
Results

This research design yielded 41 tests of the 

consumer trust model. These are the results:

R-Square Avg. Low High

Trust .745 .590 .837

Compliance .495 .299 .713

Trust  Compliance .676 .520 .792

Competence  Trust .216 .154 .311

Confidence  Trust .668 .579 .768

Standardized Estimates

Path Avg. Low High
Conclusions

 The results indicate that the model:

1. explains much of the variance in trust,

2. with just a few variables,

3. that are easily understood,

4. and actionable.

 Confidence is the key driver of consumer trust in 

the U.S. food system.

 These results were replicated in 2008 and 2009 

for the U.S. food system and in 2009 on another 

topic of public controversy (i.e., power lines).
Implications of the Findings

 Communicating about the competence of food 

system representatives is important for gaining 

and maintaining consumer trust.

 Even more important for gaining and 

maintaining consumer trust is instilling 

confidence in food system representatives.

 Future research needs to identify specific 

actions that reflect competence and instill 

confidence.
Policy Issues

 The self-interest of maintaining consumer trust

infers industry encouragement and support for 

recommendations offered by opinion leaders.

 Point: Opinion leaders in the U.S. food system 

(USDA, FDA, EPA, etc.) typically ask for more 

regulations as a means of instilling trust.

 Therefore, maintaining trust often infers support 

for more regulation of the food system!
Policy Issues

 This conclusion seems reasonable.

 Consider, however, the potential negative 

consequences for small and medium size food 

companies of supporting greater legislation.
Policy Issues

 Economies of Scale

 Conforming with regulations requires a 

burden of time and expertise. 

 These burdens weigh less heavily upon large 

firms compared with small and medium size 

firms.

 Therefore: The greater the regulation, the 

greater the advantage for larger firms.
Policy Issues

 Two-Edged Sword

 New regulations bring about greater safety, 

but new regulations might bring about 

greater industry control by a few large firms.

1. Small and medium size firms cannot oppose 

new regulations for fear of appearing to be 

“anti-safety.”

2. Government agencies might appear to 

endorse favoritism if they set different 

regulations for different size firms.
Policy Issues

 Summary

 Smaller firms might find it difficult to beat the 

“trilemma” by relying upon the diffusion of 

innovations approach because the actions of 

opinion leaders tend to create policies that 

create disproportionate burden on these 

firms.

 Therefore, smaller firms must rely more on 

changing institutional approaches as a means 

to instilling consumer trust in them as 

representatives of the U.S. food system.
The Policy Dilemma

Horn #1: Maintain proper functioning of critical 

social systems.

Horn #2: Encourage entrepreneurship.
Consumer Trust in the 

U.S. Food System

Implications for Communication and Regulation

Thank You!
436

Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future food-animal 

systems

Charlie Arnot

Center for Food Integrity
The Center for Food Integrity 

Charlie Arnot

Charlie.Arnot@FoodIntegrity.org

Building consumer trust and 

confidence in the contemporary 

U.S. food system
CFI Mission

To build consumer trust and confidence 

in the contemporary U.S. food system 

by...

• sharing accurate, balanced information

• correcting misinformation

• modeling best practices and

• engaging stakeholders 
Earning and Maintaining the Social License (Sapp/CMA)

Freedom to 

Operate

Freedom to 

Operate
Earning and Maintaining the Social License (Sapp/CMA)

Social License
Definition: The privilege of operating with 

minimal formalized restrictions (legislation, 

regulation, or market requirements) based on 

maintaining public trust by doing what’s right.

Public Trust: A belief that activities are 

consistent with social expectations and 

the values of the community and other 

stakeholders.

Social License
Tipping 

Point

Flexible 

Responsive 

Lower Cost

Rigid 

Bureaucratic 

Higher Cost

Social License 

• Ethics 

• Values 

• Expectations

•Self-Regulation

Social Control 

• Regulation 

• Legislation 

• Litigation 

Single triggering event • Compliance

Cumulative impact

The Social License To Operate

High Trust

Complete 

Autonomy

Low Trust

Prohibition
Tipping 

Point

Proactive Reactive 

Education, BMP’s, Certification, Verification Lobbying, Regulatory Affairs, Litigation

The Social License To Operate

Industry 

Engagement

Market Intervention

Can Shift Balance

• Customer Mandates

• Consumer Boycott

Social benefit 

perceived greater 

than social cost

Social cost perceived 

greater than social 

benefit

Social License Social Control

Change in social norms (values, ethics, expectations) can shift tipping point
Earning and Maintaining the Social License (Sapp/CMA)

Social License

Freedom to 

Operate
Earning and Maintaining the Social License (Sapp/CMA)

Social License

Trust

Freedom to 

Operate

Trust
Earning and Maintaining the Social License (Sapp/CMA)

Influential Others

Social License

Trust

Freedom to 

Operate

Influential 

Others
Earning and Maintaining the Social License (Sapp/CMA)

Influential Others

Competence

Social License

Trust

Freedom to 

Operate

Competence
Earning and Maintaining the Social License (Sapp/CMA)

Confidence

Influential Others

Competence

Value 

Similarity Social License

Trust

Freedom to 

Operate

Confidence
Balancing for Success

Sustainable 

Systems

Ethically Grounded

• Compassion 

• Responsibility

• Respect

• Fairness

• Truth

Value Similarity

Scientifically Verified

• Data Driven

• Repeatable

• Measurable

• Specific

Objectivity

Economically Viable

• ROI

• Demand

• Revenue

• Cost Control

• Efficiency

Profits

Ethically Grounded
When many people think of farming they 

envision barns in pastoral settings and a farmer 

pulling a plow behind a tractor ...

The Good ‘Ol Days...
Comparing modern agriculture with a farmer 

pulling a plow is like comparing a new car with 

the classic ’57 Chevy ...

The Good ‘Ol Days...
• No power steering

• No air conditioning

• No seat belts

• No air bags

• No computers to 

manage performance

• Horrible gas mileage

• No emissions controls

The Good ‘Ol Days...
Agrarian Model
In the United States today:

• The top ten food retailers sell more than 75% of food.

• The top four beef packers process more than 80% of beef.

• The top ten chicken companies produce 79% of chicken.

• The top 50 dairy cooperatives produce 79% of the milk.

• The top 60 egg companies produce 85% of eggs.

• The top 20 pork producers produce more than 50% of pork. 

Changing Industry
• Producer

• Processor

• Distributor

Global 

Brand NGO

Integrated Model

Consumer Trust in the 

Food System

Summary Slides

October 2009

This information is wholly owned by CMA and licensed to CFI; Study was conducted by Gestalt Inc.
Thank You to the 2009 Consumer 

Trust Research Sponsors
Quantitative Research

Summary of Findings
Quantitative Methodology and 

Sample Design

• Respondents were recruited to participate in the study 

through Survey Sampling International’s consumer Web panel

– Survey Sampling International is a world leader in providing actively 

managed sample sources for Web-based surveys.

• Total of 2018 completed surveys (sampling error at 95% 

confidence level +/- 2.2%)

• The Web surveys averaged 25 minutes and data collection 

took place in August and September of 2009

• Split sample to accommodate the survey content
Respondent Profile

• 57% female and 43% male

• 72% were primary shoppers in the house

• ~87% shop once or twice per week

• Representative of the typical U.S. food shopper 

regarding:

– education

– income

– political orientation

– vegetarian practices

– consumer advocacy
Concern About Issues

• Consumers were asked to indicate how concerned they 

were about several life and current event issues

• Used a 0 to 10 scale where “0” meant they had no concern 

about the issue and “10” meant they were very concerned 

about the issue:

– 0 to 3 ratings indicate relatively low level of concern

– 4 to 7 ratings indicate relatively ambivalent level of concern

– 8 to 10 ratings indicate relatively strong level of concern 

• Highest concerns included (based on mean scores):

– The U.S. Economy (8.44)

– Rising Energy Costs (8.29)

– Rising Cost of Food (8.23)

– Rising Health Care Costs (8.21)

– Personal Financial Situation (8.04)

• Lowest Concern (based on mean scores):

– Global Warming (6.05)
Mean Summary of Concerns About Issues

Issue Mean

The U.S. Economy 8.44

Rising Energy Costs 8.29

Rising Cost of Food 8.23

Rising Health Care Costs 8.21

Personal Financial Situation 8.04

Food Safety 7.67

U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan 7.22

Access to accurate information to make healthy food choices 6.60

Humane Treatment of Farm Animals 6.43

Obesity in America 6.37

Global Warming 6.05

(n=2066)
Consumer Trust in the 

Humane Treatment of Farm Animals

Consumers were asked to rate the following stakeholders on 

COMPETENCE, CONFIDENCE,

RESPONSIBILITY and TRUST in the area of 

ensuring the humane treatment of farm animals. 

Farmers/

Producers

Food 

Companies/

Processors

Grocery 

Stores Restaurants

Federal 

Regulatory 

Agencies

State 

Regulatory 

Agencies

Advocacy 

Groups
Summary of Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Ratings

(0 to 10 Scale)

(n=1039)

Segments Competence Confidence Trust Responsibility*

Farmers/producers 6.78 6.46 6.41 39.07

Advocacy groups 5.67 5.51 5.22 9.72

State regulatory 

agencies 5.59 5.19 5.01 11.50

Federal regulatory 

agencies 5.56 5.17 4.98 13.22

Food companies/ 

processors 5.03 4.72 4.52 13.49

Grocery stores 4.95 4.86 4.73 7.23

Restaurants 4.76 4.72 4.54 5.77

* 100 point allocation

• Consumers hold farmers/producers primarily responsible for humane treatment of 

farm animals, but they lack confidence and trust in all groups to ensure it.
Farm Animal Welfare
“If farm animals are treated decently and 

humanely, I have no problem consuming 

meat, milk and eggs.”

2009 Mean 7.08

2008 Mean 7.41

6% 39% 55%

9% 39% 52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2008

2009

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10

7.68

7.08

7.41

6.50

6.70

6.90

7.10

7.30

7.50

7.70

7.90

2007 2008 2009

Three Year Mean
“U.S. meat is derived from humanely 

treated animals.”

2009 Mean 5.50

2008 Mean 4.80

Three Year Mean

29% 55% 16%

21% 53% 27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2008

2009

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10

5.02

5.50

4.80

4.50

4.70

4.90

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

2007 2008 2009
“I would support a law in my state to 

ensure the humane treatment of farm animals.”

2009 Mean 6.81

2008 Mean 6.91

10% 43% 47%

11% 43% 46%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2008

2009

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10

6.91

6.81

6.50

6.70

6.90

7.10

7.30

7.50

7.70

7.90

2008 2009

Two Year Mean
The Center for Food Integrity 

Charlie Arnot

Charlie.Arnot@FoodIntegrity.org

Building consumer trust and 

confidence in the contemporary 

U.S. food system
471

Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future food-animal 

systems

Janet Riley

American Meat Institute
Social Trends and the 

Future of Animal Ag

Janet M. Riley

Senior Vice President 

Public Affairs and Member Services
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Americans and Food

• Less connected to ag

– Fewer than five percent on farms

– Separated by generations

• Unsure of where food comes from

• Have basic knowledge void that many will readily 

admit

• Knowledge void is an opportunity for industry – and 

activists
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Social Media Trends

• Two-thirds (64%) of online Americans use social media

• Americans share updates about their life (43%), what they are 

currently doing (36%), and places they are going (31%), 

• One-quarter express dissatisfaction with companies, brand or 

products (26%), talking about companies, brands or products they 

like (23%) or giving product reviews & recommendations (19%). 

• More than one-third (38%) of Americans say they aim to influence 

others when expressing their preferences online and almost half 

(46%) feel the can be honest on the Internet. 

• All age groups who use social media are equally likely to share 

their dissatisfaction with a company, brand or product via social 

media (25 to 30%)

Harris Interactive, 2010
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Facebook vs. Twitter vs. Text

• 87 percent of Americans aware of Twitter

• 7 percent of Americans actually use Twitter

• 88 percent of Americans are aware of Facebook

• 41 percent use Facebook

• Teens average 2,900 texts per month

• 65 percent of adults send and receive texts

• Americans texting exceeds cell phone use

Edison Research/Arbitron, 2010

Pew Internet and American Life Project
What’s the real significance of 

these trends?

"A lie gets halfway around the 

world before the truth has a 

chance to get its pants on." 

-- Winston Churchill
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Impact

• Shorter attention spans

• Seeking easy answers and instant-gratification

• Reduced social skills

• Reduced critical thinking

Source: Comments by Dr. Susan Greenfield, Oxford 

University, in the Daily Mail
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Cultural Trends

• Very few boundaries in the social media world

• Constant “connection” in virtual fashion through 

texting and social utilities Math and science weak 

relative to other nations

• Young people taking the big idea over the details

• Gaming, YouTube means visually focused
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

News Media

• Less specialization/more generalization

– Murder and Mustard

• Many don’t have time for the background interview

• More commentary/POV reporting

• Shorter soundbites – eight seconds

• Endless deadlines, instant reporting

• More liberal than conservative and much more liberal 

than their readers/viewers (Pew Center 2006)
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Michael Specter, Denialism

• Documents fear and distrust 

• Feelings over facts

• “People wrap themselves in their 

beliefs so tightly that you can’t set 

them free. Even the facts will not set 

them free.”
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Declining Trust

• Do you believe most Americans can be trusted or you 

can’t be too careful in dealing with people?

• 1960: 60 percent trust most people

• 1970s: below 50 percent

• 1990: 40 percent trust most people

• 2006: just 32 percent trust most people

Source: True Enough, by Farhad Manjoo
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Why do people trust each other less?

• Interact less with one another

• Watch TV more and reality is distorted

• Many feel that those in whom they’ve placed trust –

corporations, churches and government – have 

proved unworthy

• Shifting from generalized trust (trust of people 

broadly) to particularized trust (where we only trust 

people like ourselves. Particularized destroys 

generalized.

Source: True Enough, by Farhad Manjoo
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

“Truthiness”

• Coined by Stephen Colbert to describe the reality that 

people choose to accept

• Could be Keith Olbermann reality, Lou Dobbs reality 

or Bill O’Reilly reality

• Continually reinforce our own reality and choose to 

trust it and distrust others
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Films

• Supersize Me

• Fast Food Nation

• Food Inc.

• Lovemeatender – to come!

• American Meat – to come!
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Books

• Fast Food Nation (Chew on This)

• Omnivore’s Dilemma

• Eating Animals

• Omnivore’s Dilemma (And the Youth edition)

• Food Rules

Even if you don’t read the book, you likely will 

read stories about the book or hear the author on 

TV or radio.
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Who do food activists want Americans to 

believe we are?
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Local Hero Joel Salatin

• Polyface Farms

• Dressed like Huck Finn

• Open farm with tours

• Back to basics

• Warns against big industry, 

technology, fear of the 

future
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan

• Books and films are 

penetrating schools

• Project a common man 

image

• Argue for slow food, 

local food, organic food

• Criticize what they 

believe to be lack of 

transparency in food 

industry

• Market food nostalgia
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Top Myths

% Strongly/Somewhat Agree

Hormone use in poultry production is a health concern 65%

Eating too much red meat can increase the risk of heart disease 

because it contains saturated fat 64%

Hormone use in beef production is a health concern 64%

Americans today are eating more meat and poultry; more than the 

5 to 7 ounces recommended for adults each day 64%

Hormone use in pork production is a health concern 60%

Antibiotic use in livestock production is a health and safety concern 

for meat and poultry consumers 60%

Antibiotics use in livestock production is increasing 58%
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Opinions, Voids and Opportunities

• Lots of opinions

• Lots of “I just don’t know”

• Problem will worsen as we become less connected to 

agriculture

• When there is a knowledge void, we have an 

opportunity

• Void can be filled with correct or incorrect information
AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Strategic Imperatives

• Connect in ways that are meaningful

– Enter their world

– Bring them into yours

• Communicate shared values in a world that trusts 

less

• Consider strategies to increase transparency

– Chris Chinn videos

• Be ready to communicate rapidly and concisely

• Think, speak and communicate visually
Thank you!
493

Panel: Trends in society and their impact on our future food-animal 

systems

Jay Vroom

CropLife America
Jay Vroom

President and CEO

CropLife America

Washington, DC

Trends in Society and Their Impact on 

our Future Food-Animal Systems

June 8, 2010
2

21st Century Problems

• Increasing Population

• Improved Nutrition in 

China and India

• Water Shortage

• Global meat demand is 

projected to double by 

2050
3

The United Nations predicts world 

population will exceed 9 billion by 

mid-century and has called for a 

100 percent increase in world food 

production by 2050.

Technology is Crucial

World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. 2007. United Nations Population Division, New York.
4

70 percent of the world’s additional food 

needs can be produced only with new 

and existing agricultural technologies. 

United Nations FAO, 2002

Technology is Crucial
5

Modern 

Agriculture

Integrated 

Pest 

Management

No-Till Farming

Organic 

Agriculture

The Dynamic Face of Agriculture

All-Natural Locally Grown Fair Trade Hormone-Free
6

Responsible Food Production

Smart Use

• Precise application and fewer inputs

Better 

Results

• Increased productivity and higher yields

Affordable 

Products

• Affordable supply of nutritious food and produce
7

A Synergistic Relationship
8

Soybeans and Livestock

Source: United Soybean Board
9

• Field and Miscellaneous crops, $128 

billion

• Fruit and Nut crops, $17 billion

• Vegetables, $ 12.5 billion

• Total all crops, $157.5 billion

($168 billion in 2008)

USDA, ERS

Value of Crop Production in 2009
10

Grains to Feed: Livestock and 

Poultry #1 Customer

2008/2009

Feed 43.2%

Seed .3%

Food & Fuel

41%

Exports 15.5%

Source: USDA, World Agricultural Outlook Board: World Agricultural 

Supply and Demand Estimates, 6/3/2010.
11

Grains to Feed: Livestock and 

Poultry #1 Customer

2004/2005

Feed 51.7%

Seed .3%

Food & Fuel

23.2%

Exports 16.0%

Source: USDA, World Agricultural Outlook Board: World Agricultural 

Supply and Demand Estimates, 6/3/2010.
12

What are the Trends in Society?

Charlton Research Survey

• Web survey of 85 questions over 25 minutes to 

1300 adults nationwide

• 800 Informed Americans 

• 500 Special Audience

Policy Leaders

Health Experts

Scientists
13

The Words are Key

Strong negative response to the word “pesticides”

 

Special Audience

Informed American

0 20 40 60 80 100

24 76

24 76

Positive Negative

%

(6)*

* Indicates % very positive

(5)*

Top Responses - those Positive:

Kills bugs, insects, pests/Insect free

Necessary/Increase production/Protects

crops/food

Safety Issues/Should be used properly

Top Responses - those Negative:

Poison/Poisonous/ Toxic

Harmful/Dangerous/Bad

Chemicals

Disease/Illness/Not healthy

Cancer

DDT

Source: Charlton Research
14

The Words are Key

Audiences more receptive to “crop protection”

 

Special Audience

Informed American

0 20 40 60 80 100

63 37

64 36

Positive Negative

%

(18)*

* Indicates % very positive

(14)*

Top Responses - those Positive:

Prevents damage to crops/Protection from

disease, pests or harmful substances

No pesticide/No chemicals/No

poison/Natural/Organic

Safety/Security

Top Responses - those Negative:

Insecticides/Herbicides/Chemical

spray/Pesticides

Government Control/Subsidies/Protection

Chemical Use

Source: Charlton Research
15

Key Findings: Promote Modern 

Agriculture

CropLife America is leading a major 

initiative to encourage the 

widespread adoption of the term 

“modern agriculture” when 

describing the wide majority of 

positive and beneficial production 

practices employed by America’s 

farmers.
16

Attitudes Change Based on Facts

• Gaining trust from the consumers and thought 

leaders

 Before messaging discussion, 55% of informed 

Americans and 61% of special audience “favored” use 

of pesticides in agriculture

 After messaging discussion, 81% of informed 

Americans and 78% of special audience “favored” use 

of pesticides in agriculture
17

# 1 Crop Protection = Greater Yields and Quality

# 2 Crop Protection = Highly Regulated 

# 3 Crop Protection = Research and Innovation

# 4 Crop Protection = Careful Stewardship

Key Findings: Four Effective Messages
18

Message #1

The agricultural input industry, by supplying farmers 

with important and necessary crop inputs, is 

committed to helping produce an affordable and 

sustainable supply of food to help feed a hungry 

world. 

Crop Protection =

Greater Yields and Quality

Key Findings: Most Effective Messaging
19

Key Findings: Most Effective Messaging

Message #2

The agricultural input industry works closely with 

government agencies and other organizations to 

ensure that farmers have access to the technologies 

required to support modern and safe agricultural 

practices. 

Crop Protection =

Highly Regulated
20

Key Findings: Most Effective Messaging

Message #3

Constant innovations in the development of 

agricultural inputs and farming practices provide 

growers with the tools that they need to reduce their 

environmental footprint and to make farming more 

sustainable. 

Crop Protection =

Research and Innovation
21

Key Findings: Most Effective Messaging

Crop Protection = Careful Stewardship

Message #4

The modern agricultural practices adopted by today’s 

farmers ensure that all inputs are used with care and 

only when required. 
22

Crop Protection Regulations: 

Impacting Livestock

Environmental 

Regulations

Clean Air

Clean Water 

Eco-Risk

Endangered 

Species

Endocrine 

Disruption 

Spray Drift

Law Suits
23

Comprehensively Addressing Environmental 

Issues:

Clean Water

Clean Air

Spray Drift & Volatile Organic Emissions

Ecological Risk Assessment

Endangered Species

Meeting the Regulatory 

Challenges
24

Future Food Systems through Modern 

Agriculture

Planet

Profits
25

Jay Vroom

President and CEO

CropLife America

www.croplifeamerica.org

www.croplifefoundation.org

Follow us on Twitter!

http://twitter.com/croplifeamerica

More information
519

Ethical and practical implications of food-animal agriculture

Paul Thompson

Michigan State University
Ethical and Practical 

Implications of Food Animal 

Agriculture

Paul B. Thompson

W.K. Kellogg Professor

of Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics

Michigan State University, East Lansing USA
Practical Food Ethics Critical Food Ethics

What is (Agri)Food Ethics?

The pursuit of ethically 

justified ends either 

through the purchase 

and consumption of food 

or through political 

influence on food and 

farm policy.

Attempts to 

understand, analyze 

and discuss the 

legitimate ends and 

structure of the 

agrifood system.
Practical Food Ethics Critical Food Ethics

What is (Agri)Food Ethics?
Practical Food Ethics

• Various civil society 

and for profit groups 

have developed 

marketing 

arrangements that 

return a higher share 

of the purchase price 

to small farmers and 

farm labor.
Practical Food Ethics

• Regulatory and 

consumer-based 

efforts to ensure or 

improve humane 

treatment of farm 

animals
Practical Food Ethics

• Ethical vegetarianism 

and veganism

– Eliminate consumption 

of animals and of 

animal proteins
Practical Food Ethics

• The Rise of Organic Markets

– An international phenomenon arising out of several 

distinct philosophical and historical orientations

– Moving rapidly toward relatively consistent standards
Practical Food Ethics

• “Eat Local”

– Reduce environmental 

impacts from transport 

and storage of foods

– Support local 

community 

development and 

sense of place

– Connect to farmers
Critical Food Ethics

• Food and Agricultural 

Organization of the 

United Nations

– FAO Ethics Papers

– FAO Readings in 

Ethics
Critical Food Ethics

• National bioethics committees that have taken 

an interest in food

– European Group on Ethics report on animal cloning 

for food: 16 January 2008
Critical Food Ethics

Professional organizations

such as the European Society

for Agriculture and Food Ethics

(EURSAFE) and the Agriculture,

Food and Human Values

Society

http://www.eursafe.org/

http://www.afhvs.org/
Practical Food Ethics Critical Food Ethics

What is Food Ethics?

They know what the right 

thing to do is. The primary 

focus is on strategy and 

actions that can be taken to 

actually do it.

They are not at all sure what 

the right thing to do is. The 

focus is on deliberation, 

inquiry and discourse to 

discover it.
Practical Food Ethics Critical Food Ethics

What is NOT Food Ethics?

Using Social 

Science and 

to Manage 

Practical 

Ethics 

Initiatives

In my judgment, while 

the rest of the world has 

made a serious 

engagement with critical 

ethics, the U.S. has not. 
Agrarian

Philosophy of

Agriculture

Industrial

Philosophy

of Agriculture

Questions and Strategy for 

Critical Food Ethics
Industrial Philosophy

of Agriculture

• Agriculture is just 

another sector in the 

industrial economy.

• Norms for performance 

are just like those in any 

sector of an industrial 

economy.

• Be efficient.

• Internalize costs.
Be efficient

• Produce commodity goods in a 

manner consistent with the utilitarian 

maxim:

• Action should achieve “the greatest 

good for the greatest number” 
Be efficient

• Produce commodity goods in a 

manner consistent with the utilitarian 

maxim:

• Action should achieve “the greatest 

good for the greatest number” 

• Reducing people employed in agriculture 

means they are freed for other pursuits.
Be efficient

• Produce commodity goods in a 

manner consistent with the utilitarian 

maxim:

• Action should achieve “the greatest 

good for the greatest number” 

• Lowering the costs of food and fiber 

means resources can be spent on other 

(more) things.
Be efficient

• Produce commodity goods in a 

manner consistent with the utilitarian 

maxim:

• Action should achieve “the greatest 

good for the greatest number” 

• Cheaper food benefits the poor more than 

the rich because the poor spend more of 

their income on food.
Be efficient

• Produce commodity goods in a 

manner consistent with the utilitarian 

maxim:

• Action should achieve “the greatest 

good for the greatest number” 

• BUT: Efficiency has social costs. With 

fewer farmers, people must migrate to 

other jobs, other places.
Be efficient

• Produce commodity goods in a manner 

consistent with the utilitarian maxim:

• Action should achieve “the greatest good for the 

greatest number”

• Benefits to the many outweigh 

these social costs to the few.

Social costs are ethically justified.

But this ethical logic 

of justification 

operates within 

assumed ethical 

constraints.
Internalize costs

• Efficiency is always achieved with 

reference to background rules and 

regulations that frame the trade-offs 

people are willing to make.

• Secure property rights.

• Personal protection from harm and threat.

• Basic liberties: free speech, assembly and 

liberty of conscience.
Internalize costs

• Efficiency is always achieved with 

reference to background rules and 

regulations that frame the trade-offs 

people are willing to make.

• Secure property rights.

• Personal protection from harm and threat.

• Basic liberties: free speech, assembly and 

liberty of conscience.

Industrial practices that impose cost on others 

without their consent do not reflect the “true 

cost” and putative efficiencies are misleading.

Therefore the legitimacy of an efficiency claim 

depends on the legitimacy and completeness of 

the background rules and regulations.

The background rules and regulations must 

reflect and assure the protection of key moral 

rights.
For Example...

• Chemical pesticides...

– Lower overall production, storage and 

processing costs

– Impose health costs on farm workers and on 

vulnerable consumers (children, immune 

deficient)

A Good Thing

A Violation of

their Rights

Lower prices due to chemical

pesticides do not represent

true efficiencies until

rights respected (or costs are

Included in the calculation).
This is a framework: a philosophy

of agriculture.

It is not a rationalization of or

justification for conventional,

industrial style farming systems

as they currently exist.

In fact, it provides 

one sketch of the 

work that needs to be 

done in critical food 

ethics.
This is a framework: a philosophy

of agriculture.

It is not a rationalization of or

justification for conventional,

industrial style farming systems

as they currently exist.

In fact, it provides 

one sketch of the 

work that needs to be 

done in critical food 

ethics.

Have existing 

agricultural production 

systems lived up to 

the norms and ideals 

of the industrial 

philosophy?
This is a framework: a philosophy

of agriculture.

It is not a rationalization of or

justification for conventional,

industrial style farming systems

as they currently exist.

In fact, it provides 

one sketch of the 

work that needs to be 

done in critical food 

ethics.

Have the poor benefited 

from efficiencies?

Does our system of rules 

and regulations protect us 

from imposed costs?

What about future 

generations and distant 

peoples?
This is a framework: a philosophy

of agriculture.

It is not a rationalization of or

justification for conventional,

industrial style farming systems

as they currently exist.

And it provides an 

ethical strategy for 

asking new 

questions:

How should we include 

animals when think about 

imposing costs on others?

Is it useful to think of 

biodiversity or ecosystems as 

having rights or intrinsic 

value?
Agrarian Philosophy of Agriculture

• Farming and 

foodways draw upon 

regionally unique 

aspects of climate, 

soil and habitat.

• They play a critical 

role in fixing or 

determining the moral 

identity of a people.
Agrarian Philosophy of Agriculture

• Farming and 

foodways draw upon 

regionally unique 

aspects of climate, 

soil and habitat.

• They play a critical 

role in fixing or 

determining the moral 

identity of a people.

Agriculture is NOT just 

another sector of the 

industrial economy!

Food and farming 

demand a type of moral 

consideration unto their 

own kind.
Agrarian Philosophy of Agriculture

1. Associated values of communal spirit, 

place prosperity and social capital...

2. The industrialization of farming as the 

loss of identity, community solidarity and 

the corruption of moral virtue...

3. An environmental philosophy grounded 

in coupled human and natural 

ecosystems...

A story that is too long and too 

complex for the present context...

Articulating and reconstructing the 

potential contributions of an agrarian 

vision is not something that can be 

done in a 30 minute presentation.
Industrial vs. Agrarian

• Costs and benefits

• Rights and duties

• Conduct & Character

• Community Identity

Ethical issues can be 

identified, specified and 

debated within each of 

these approaches, or 

between these 

approaches.
Industrial vs. Agrarian

• Costs and benefits

• Rights and duties

• Conduct & Character

• Community Identity

Agriculture must live up 

to norms that are 

applied through all 

sectors of the industrial 

economy.

Agriculture is a source of 

meaning and moral 

wisdom that must be 

protected from 

industrialization.

Contemporary farmers, agricultural scientists and ag leaders are caught 

in the tension between these sometimes incompatible visions.

This approach 

has been short 

circuited by 

analysts who 

treat critique 

as an 

expression of 

taste.

This approach 

has been 

thoroughly 

marginalized in 

the U.S. public 

sphere.

554

Panel: 

How can we move forward? The need for a collaborative vision

Jack Fisher

Ohio Farm Bureau
John C. “Jack” Fisher

Executive Vice President

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
“All business in a democratic society

begins with public permission and

exists by public approval.”

~ Arthur W. Page
Challenges with the Public
• Like to make own choices

• Don’t like to be ‘put at risk’

• Believe anecdotes over 

statistics

• Look for impact on themselves

• Distrust industry & government

• Trust farmers

Predictable Behaviors

by the Public
• Ohio Farm Bureau Federation

• 6 major Ohio farm groups

• Form Ohioans for Livestock Care 

Corp./PAC

• Paid media

• Social media

• Earned media

• Fundraising strategy

• Coalition building

• Accounting and legal support

• National model

Ohio Soybean Association 

– President

Ohio Corn Growers 

– Secretary

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 

– Treasurer

Ohio Pork Producers

Ohio Poultry Association

Ohio Cattleman Association

Ohio Dairy Producers Assoc.

The Plan: A Proactive Approach
Massive Media/Grassroots 50,000 

signs!!!

Over 100 billboards
• Bi- Partisan Support 

• Over 500 community and state leaders

• Ohio Republican and Democratic Parties

Allies and Supporters
Margin: 64% to 36%

40% Voter Turnout

87 of 88 counties

Only 13 counties w/

less than 60%

Only 2 counties w/ 

less than 55%

Only 1 county w/

less than 50%

Won all major 

urban counties

November 3: Victory!
• The Governor appointed 10 Ohioans

 One family farmer

 Two veterinarians (including the state vet)

 One food safety expert

 One local Humane Society representative

 Two representatives of state farm 

organizations

 One dean of an Ohio college of agriculture

 Two Ohio consumers

• The Speaker of the House and President of the 

Senate each named a farmer (11-12)

• Director of Ohio Department of Agriculture is a 

member and chair of the Board

The Board
Set standards for the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in Ohio:

• Maintain food safety

 Protect locally grown and raised food

 Make decisions based on fact, science and data

In setting standards, they must consider.....

• Overall animal health

• On-farm biosecurity

• Animal disease prevention

• Food safety 

• Affordability of food supplies

• Best farm management practices

• Animal morbidity /mortality data

What the Board Does
Mission Statement: 

Celebrating Animals, 

Confronting Cruelty

Seven Out of Ten Americans Wrongly Believe that

HSUS is a Pet-Shelter "Umbrella Group“

(Nationwide Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp.)

Wayne Pacelle, President 

& CEO of HSUS

“We would be foolish and silly not to unite 

with people in the public health sector, the 

environmental community, [and] unions, to 

try to challenge corporate agriculture.”
• HSUS has proposed their own measure

• Petition language has been certified and 

signatures are being gathered

• 402,275 signatures are needed by 6/30

• November 2010 ballot—a big year

• Ohioans for Humane Farms

• Farmer endorsement request letter

2010: Here They Come Again

• Ag-Team Unity and Coordination - Don’t have 

threatened species run the campaign

• Share what we know and tear down the walls

• Farmers must “own” the animal welfare issue

• Stop the bad actions

• Get in front of the issue

• Much more on-line engagement (social media)

• Don’t approach on state-by-state basis

Lessons Learned


Center for Food and 

Animal Issues


574

Panel: 

How can we move forward? The need for a collaborative vision

Chandler Goule

National Farmers Union
"How can we move forward?: the 

need for a collaborative vision"

CAST Animal Agriculture Symposium 

June 9, 2010
A Unified Vision

• In the 1950s 15% of the U.S. population was at 

the most, 1 generation away from the farm

• In 2010, many consumers have no connection 

to their food source

• Educating our end users and consumers about 

agriculture is key to our success
Avoiding the Wedge

• Any strategist will tell you that to weaken a 

group, organization, government or theory 

you should drive a wedge between the 

functioning parts

• Agriculture falls victim to the wedge strategy 

by its own accord between each other and by 

outside groups
Coexistence Exist

• Agriculture as a whole needs to realize there is 

a place for everyone: 

– Conventional Agriculture

– Organic Agriculture

– Sustainable Agriculture

– Agriculture of different sizes

WE MUST ALL WORK TOGETHER
Collaboration Is Key

• Money will be short this year for the Farm Bill

• Working with our nutrition counterparts in the 

farm bill is not a maybe but a must

• Combined efforts to work together to educate 

the public about the importance of domestic 

food security

• Providing the safest food supply
Conclusion

• Working together to speak out to consumers and 

the media about what we are doing that is good, 

healthy and environmentally friendly 

• Finding common grounds within our own industry

• Coexisting with all sectors

• Providing an abundant, affordable, and safe food 

supply
Thank You

Chandler Goule

Vice President of Government Relations

National Farmers Union

Cgoule@nfudc.org or 202-554-1600
582

Panel: 

How can we move forward? The need for a collaborative vision

Christine Bushway

Organic Trade Association
Sustaining Animal Agriculture:

Balancing bioethical, economic & social 

issues

How can we move forward? 

The need for a collaborative vision

Christine Bushway

Executive Director & CEO

Organic Trade Association
Organic Agriculture – A Voluntary 

Production and Handling Regulation

Organic refers to the way 

agricultural products are grown, 

raised and processed. 

It includes a system of 

production, processing, 

distribution and sales that 

assures consumers that the 

products maintain the organic 

integrity that begins on the farm.
Organic Agriculture

 Setting the stage for U.S. National organic 

standards, the U.S. Congress adopted the 

Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990 

as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. 

 This action was followed by over a decade of 

public input and discussion, which resulted in a 

National Organic Program final rule published 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

in December 2000 and implemented in October 

2002.

 These stringent standards put in place a 

system to certify that specific practices are 

used to produce and process organic 
Formalized Public Input

 Required by Law –

Organic is accountable to the public

 Citizen Advisory Panel: National Organic Standards 

Board

 Includes farmers, ranchers, scientists, consumer protection 

advocates, certifiers and retailers

 Has statutory authority over allowed and prohibited 

materials
Organic Animal Agriculture

 A Trend That Is Here To Stay!

 Organic sales in the United States reached $26.6 billion 

in sales in 2009.

 +5.5% despite a tough economy

 Organic food now accounts for 3.7% of all food 

products sold in the U.S.

 11% of fresh fruits and vegetables consumed are organic

 5.3% of dairy products consumed are organic

 Organic is recognized as one of the fastest growing 

sectors of agriculture

Source – OTA’s 2010 organic industry survey
U.S. Organic Food Retail Sales Forecast 

Looking Strong

Organic companies report upbeat in earnings

Releasing its second quarter results for the period ending April 

11, Whole Foods Market, the largest US organic retail chain, 

reported that its sales had increased by 13 percent, the best 

results reported in several years.

Meanwhile, UNFI, the largest 

distributor of organic products, 

reported second quarter earnings 

ending Jan. 30 had increased by 

15 percent.
Impacts of Organic Regulation on FoodAnimal Agriculture - Economics of production

Organic Farms All Other Farms

Gross Sales $217,675 $134,807

Production 

expenses $171,978 $109,359

Operating Profit $45,697 $25,448

 U.S. organic farms on average have higher 

sales, higher production expenses, and higher 

operating profit than U.S. non-organic farms

* The 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted as a follow-on to the 2007 

Census of Agriculture by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
 U.S. organic farmers (avg. 54 years old) are younger than non- organic farmers (avg. 57 years old)*

 Younger farmers are more likely to adopt requirements of organic 

production**

*The 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted as a follow-on to the 2007 Census of Agriculture by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

**USDA ERS Report Number 82

Impacts of Organic Regulation on FoodAnimal Agriculture - Rural demographics 
President Obama’s Cancer Panel Report

 The Journal Pediatrics concludes that 

exposure to organophosphate pesticides at 

levels common among U.S. children may 

contribute to the prevalence of attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in these 

children. 

 The President’s Cancer Panel Report “Reducing Environmental 

Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now,” was released May 6, 2010 

recommends for consumers to choose food grown without pesticides or 

chemical fertilizers , antibiotics, and growth hormones to help decrease 

their exposure to environmental chemicals that can increase their risk of 

contracting cancer.
Organic should be PART of the solution to feeding the world

 The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in 

its report Organic Agriculture and Food Security explicitly states that 

organic agriculture can address local and global food security 

challenges.

 Organic agriculture and its’ encouragement of diversified systems 

builds self reliance critical to food security.

 Organic agriculture can provide critical high value exports such as 

coffee and chocolate for small farmers world-wide

Impacts of Organic Regulation on 

Food-Animal Agriculture – Global 

effects
Moving Forward – A Collaborative Vision

 Organic farmers are not attacking when they 

communicate verified production practices

The Relationship between 

Organic Producers and 

Consumers:

Organic must affirm for the 

consumer that we are living up 

to the commitment of the 

organic program and 

consumer expectations.

 A free market economy is 

based on consumer choice

 Providing credible 

information on how food is 

produced, according to a 

regulated system informs 

consumer choice
OTA and IDFA - Collaboration

 June 10 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit, Cincinnati, Ohio to hear Oral 

Arguments.

 OTA and IDFA are seeking 

to overthrow the Ohio 

regulation
OH Regulation – A Challenge to 

Free Speech

 Organic milk producers’ right to make truthful 

labeling claims concerning their production 

practices.

 Potential to impact all organic producers’ labeling 

rights.

 Consumers’ right to know 

about how the milk they 

purchase is produced.
Moving Forward

 Support agriculture and all agricultural 

livelihood

 Value diversity

 Protect consumer choice, free speech and 

right to know

 Remember – many organic farmers are also 

non-organic farmers
Organic Trade Association

Christine Bushway, Executive Director & CEO

CBushway@ota.com * (413) 376-1233

www.OTA.com
598

Panel: 

How can we move forward? The need for a collaborative vision

Joe Stookey

North American Food Animal Well-Being Commission on Beef

University of Saskatchewan
Moving Animal Welfare Forward in the 

Beef Industry

Joseph Stookey

University of Saskatchewan

co-chair North American Food Animal 

Wellbeing Commission - Beef
Critical Factors Influencing the 

Sustainability of Livestock Production 

Practices

Food Safety Environment

Animal Welfare

Economics

and

Profitability
Number of beef cows and hogs in Canada 

and the number of producers (1961-2006)

(Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Agriculture, various year)

223, 402

11, 497

167,773

83,000

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Number of Producers (thousands)

Number of Animals (thousands)

Number of Hogs

Number of Beef Cows

Number of Hog 

Producers

Number of Beef 

Producers
Distribution of a consumer’s dollar spent on 

food between the year 1910 and 1997.

1910 1997

Year

Percent of Consumer Dollar

100

80

65

50

35

20

0

(Halweil, 2004)

Marketing Share

Farm Share

Input Share
Changing demographics

We have fewer farms 

with higher number of 

animals per farm.

We have moved from 

extensive to more 

intensive systems.

...with the exception of 

cow/calf operations! 

As herd size 

increases, ranchers 

move towards more 

extensive operations
Beef

Food Animal

Welfare

Network

(FAWN)

Eggs

Broilers

Dairy

Lamb

Other?

Other?

Grandin

Foundation Stakeholders Include:

Consumers

Producers

The Animals

Transporters

Packers

Processors

Retailers

Restaurants

Government

NGOs
What are the responsibilities of the Beef 

Commission?

Identify the most important animal welfare issues facing the beef 

industry.

Develop standards of production for beef cattle.

Guide research needs and field investigations

Produce reports to address issues and solve problems 

Independently review and endorse practices, standards and 

assessment tools when asked by stakeholders 

Develop animal well-being monitoring system for real time feed 

back in outcomes of practices utilized to raise cattle

Recommend and develop animal care-giver training programs 

and monitor training

Represent our stakeholders interests in state and national public 

forums when requested by overarching commission
Environmental conditions for animals (heat, cold, dust, mud)

Painful procedures (castration, dehorning, branding)

Weaning/Preconditioning/Respiratory disease

Transportation

Non-ambulatory animals 

Cattle handling 

Euthanasia and disposal of chronically ill animals 

Employee training 

Electro-ejaculation of bulls 

Unwanted dairy bull calves 

Cull dairy cows

Top Beef Cattle Welfare Concerns

as identified by NAFAWC-Beef 

commissioners
The newer social 

consensus is that 

unnecessary pain 

and suffering 

“trumps” the 

potential salvage 

value of a culled 

animal. 

Historically it was a “sin” to waste or 

throw away an animal that had 

salvage value.
Environmental conditions for animals (heat, cold, dust, mud)

Painful procedures (castration, dehorning, branding)

Weaning/Preconditioning/Respiratory disease

Transportation

Non-ambulatory animals 

Cattle handling 

Euthanasia and disposal of chronically ill animals 

Employee training 

Electro-ejaculation of bulls 

Unwanted dairy bull calves 

Cull dairy cows

Top Beef Cattle Welfare Concerns

as identified by NAFAWC-Beef 

commissioners
Current Beef Commissioners

Dr. Bob Smith – Oklahoma State University

Dr. Carolyn Stull - University of California at Davis

Dr. Dan Thomson – Kansas State University

Dr. Dave Sjeklocha – Academy of Veterinary Consultants

Dr. Dee Griffin – University of Nebraska

Dr. Frank Mitloehner – University of California at Davis

Dr. Gatz Riddell – AABP, Executive Director

Dr. Guy Loneragan – West Texas A&M University

Dr. Hans Coetzee – Kansas State University

Dr. Jan Shearer – Iowa State University

Dr. Janice Swanson – Michigan State University

Dr. Ron Gill – Texas A&M University

Dr. Temple Grandin – Colorado State University

Dr. Tom Noffsinger – Beef Cattle Handling Expert - Benkelman, NE

Dr. Jeff Rushen – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Dr. Joseph Stookey – University of Saskatchewan

Dr. Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Jennifer Woods – Livestock Handling Expert – Blackie, AB Canada
International Beef advisors

Stella Maris Huertas, DMTV, MSc. Of Uruguay

Donald M. Broom, professor of animal welfare, 

University of Cambridge, U.K 

Bernadette Earley, PhD, Animal Bioscience Centre, 

Grange, Ireland

Kevin Stafford, Prof of Applied Ethology and Animal 

Welfare, Massey University, New Zealand

North American Beef advisors

Dr. Elizabeth Parker, National Cattlemen’s Beef 

Association (U.S.)

Dr. Jim Sartwelle, American Farm Bureau Federation 

(U.S.)

Dr. Tom Field, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

(U.S.)

Ryder Lee, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association 

(Canada)

Bryan Walton, National Cattle Feeders Association 

(Canada)

Dr. Ron DeHaven, American Veterinary Medical 

Association

Dr. Jamie Ritter, Federation of Animal Science Societies

Dr Juan Ramon Gonzalez, Confederación Nacional De 

Organizaciones Ganaderas (Mexico)

Janet Riley, American Meat Institute
611

Economic impact of transitioning from swine gestation stalls to group 

pen housing

Brian L. Buhr

University of Minnesota
Economies of Size and Scale Applied To Biological 

Systems: The Case of Gestation Stalls and Group 

Pen Housing in the U.S. Pork Industry

Brian Buhr CAST- Food Animal

Professor Agriculture Symposium

Applied Economics Washington, D.C.

Univ. Of MN June 8-10, 2010

1
Restrictions on Crates are Expanding

European Union phase-out by 2013

California Proposition 2, passed 2008, operative 2015

Ohio ballot intiative

Arizona/Florida Ballot Initiatives

Oregon senate bill passed banning crates 2007

Wendy’s – 20% non-stall pork by 2008

Smithfield Foods announces transition to pens by 2017

HSUS Call for Elimination of Crates and Lobbying

Colorado Voluntary Crate Phase-Out by 2008 (1/11/08)

2
What Are the Costs of Transitioning 

Commercial Production Systems?

Impacts on Productivity/Costs

 Levels and Risks

Capital Costs of Transition

 Facility Cost Comparisons

 Facility Age and Loss of Function

Consumer Demand Issues

 What Must be Paid?

Market Response

 Relative Competitiveness

 Net Cost to Producers and Consumers

General Insights/Strategic Issues

3
Impacts on Productivity/Welfare

Survey of Commercial Producers

 No clear evidence of differences across systems.

 Management/Labor issues

 Variability is key

 Greater Risk of Catastrophic Loss with Pens

 E.g., ESF w/ 50% death loss due to conditioning

 Need crates about 32 days minimum.

 Need crates for ‘fall-outs’

 If NO crates productivity will be impacted.

 Sampling Issues: clearly early adopters, high quality. What 

happens when there is broader industry adoption?

4
Building Investment and Costs

Direct Costs:

 Barn Design

 Feed, flooring, pen size, building size.

 Building Retrofit

 Flooring configuration/footprint

Opportunity Cost:

 Pre-mature Capital Replacement

5
Scenarios For Analysis

Capital Costs Only – Best Case Scenarios

 No production Performance Differences.

 Simulated all combinations of replacement timing from 

immediately to at end of useful life.

Capital Costs PLUS Productivity Differences

 Based on Commercial Swine Responses and their PigChamp 

Data (note: not sig. diff)

 First assume 2 year transition impact.

 Second assume ongoing impact (worst case)

 Also included assumed higher maintenance costs for ESF 

facilities – not clear what these are yet.

6
Result 1: Retrofit vs. New Trickle

If existing barn has is less than 21 years old, the decision should be to refurbish the barn instead of building new barn.

Net Present Value Operation

$(2,500,000.00)

$(2,000,000.00)

$(1,500,000.00)

$(1,000,000.00)

$(500,000.00)

$-

$500,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Age of Existing Facility

Net Present Value

Retrofit Existing to Trickle Replace Existing w/ New Trickle

Build new barn only if the existing 

barn is at least 21 years old.

7
Table 12. Infinite Horizon Net Present Value Analysis of Gestation Stalls Compared to Group Pen Gestation Housing: Capital and 24 Month Transition Period

Scenario

2400 Sow Three 

Cycle NPVa

1200 Sow Three 

Cycle NPVa

2400 Sow 

Percent Change 

NPV

1200 Sow 

Percent Change 

NPV

Continue Stall Housing $ 1,077,068.89 c $ 539,674.81

Build New Trickle Feed Pen @ 25 years $ 851,195.37 $ 426,731.80 -21% -21%

Retrofit to Trickle Feed Pen @ 15 years $ 338,634.86 $ 170,445.50 -69% -68%

Retrofit to Trickle Feed Pen @ 5 years $ (265,522.70) $ (131,645.17) -125% -124%

Retrofit Trickle Feed Pen Average All Ages $ 168,129.57 $ 85,189.34 -84% -84%

Build New Trickle Feed Pen @ 15 years $ (8,365.41) $ (3,054.64) -101% b -101%

Build New Trickle Feed Pen @ 5 years $ (1,671,899.26) $ (834,833.46) -255% -255%

Build New Trickle Feed Pen Average All Ages $ (499,918.27) $ (248,834.58) -146% -146%

Scenario

2400 Sow Three 

Cycle NPVa

1200 Sow Three 

Cycle NPVa

2400 Sow 

Percent Change 

NPV

1200 Sow 

Percent Change 

NPV

Continue Stall Housing $ 1,434,053.54 c $ 718,150.28

Build New ESF Feed Pen @ 25 years $ 1,190,899.95 $ 583,242.24 d -17% -19%

Build New ESF Feed Pen @ 15 years $ 359,468.83 $ 153,985.63 -75% -79%

Build New ESF Feed Pen @ 5 years $ (1,256,333.94) $ (680,060.87) -188% -195%

Build New ESF Feed Pen Average All Ages $ (118,118.77) $ (92,532.45) -108% -113%

a Three cycle NPV assumes that three barn replacement cycles occur spanning 75 years. Insignificant differences occur compared to infinite horizon problems.

b The 1200 sow and 2400 sow units have the same change in this case because investment costs were assumed to be a percent mark-up compared to the base

stall barn. With the retrofit or ESF specific costs per sow were included causing non-proportional changes.

c The base stall barns differ because in the case of ESF, the respective contractors for the trickle and ESF barns provided their own stall barn estimates as well.

This allowed for a better comparison in the changes from stall to their type of system assuming same material suppliers, labor, etc.

d ESF impacts include a 75% increase in equipment maintenance costs which is why this value is higher relative to trickle feed options in this case.

ESF Feed Large Pens (Per Barn)

Trickle Feed Small Pens (Per Barn)

Result 2: Most Likely Impact Per Facility: 24 Month Learning 

Period – Then Equal Productivity

8
Result 3: Industry Level Total Impact

Absolute Best Case = ~$ 101 million GAIN

 ESF at end of life and no productivity loss to industry

Absolute Worst Case = $8.05 billion loss

 ESF, High Maintenance, Ongoing Productivity Loss

Scenario Total Industry Cost

Percent Decrease in 

Industry NPV

Total Average Cost to Retrofit Barns to Trickle Feed $ 1,867,892,023.74 74%

Total Average Cost to Build New Trickle Feed $ 3,240,730,303.66 129%

Total Average Cost to Build New ESF Feed $ 3,237,111,517.39 97%

Capital Cost Plus 2 Year Productivity Loss

9
Result 4: Market Adjusted Impacts

Competitive loss to other meats and trade

Consumers must be willing to pay 25% more for pork 

raised in group pen facilities.

Maximum Producer Loss = $4 billion, consumer = $8 

billion

Most Likely Impacts on Market Level Producer and Consumer Costs

Variable

Change in Producer Surplus (Net Impact)

Pork Producer Surplus Mill $ -$1,491.30

Beef Producer Surplus Mill $ $1,193.20

Chicken Producer Surplus Mill $ $469.23

Change in Consumer Surplus

Pork Consumer Surplus Mill $ -$2,714.12

Beef Consumer Surplus Mill $ -$1,698.46

Chicken Consumer Surplus Mill $ -$576.34

Total Consumer Surplus Mill $ -$4,988.92

ESF Productivity Impacts 2 year Transition

10
Which Assumptions Have Greatest 

Impact on Results? Sensitivity

$(3,500) $(3,000) $(2,500) $(2,000) $(1,500) $(1,000) $(500) $- $500

Sow Mortality Rate

Farrowing Rate

Total Pigs Born Per Litter

Stillborn Pigs Born Per Litter

Pre-weaning Mortality

Litters Farrowed/Breeding Female/Year

Average Lactation Length

Feed Intake Gestation (lbs/sow/day)

Feed Intake Farrowing (lbs/sow/day)

Feed Intake Gilts (lb/gilt/day)

Investment Cost in New Trickle Feed 

Cost of Retrofit

Gestation Square Footage per Sow

Discount Rate

Depreciable Life of Facility (years)

Depreciable Life of Facility (years)

Equipment Costs ($/sow)

Maintenance and Repair ($/sow)

Change in Lifetime NPV Due to 10% Worse Input Variable (thousands)

Retrofit New

Facility/Capital Input Variables

Production Input Variables

11
Potential “Risk” of Non-Uniformity in Adaptation –

Concern About Need for Better Management

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

-20,000,000-17,000,000-14,000,000-11,000,000

-8,000,000-5,000,000-2,000,000

1,000,0004,000,0007,000,000

10,000,00013,000,00016,000,00019,000,00022,000,00025,000,00028,000,000

Retrofit

Stalls

New Pens

12
Other Key Issues

Relative Competitiveness by Age of Facilities.

 Regional Impact

 Firm Impact 

Multi-Facility Firms Have Major R&D Advantage

 Many alternatives likely one will dominate.

Rather than mandates, allow for labeling or other voluntary information 

provision.

 If mandate, consumers who don’t have preference are taxed.

What Really Improves Sow Welfare?

 Which system maximizes productivity and welfare?

 What does HSUS really want? Is there a welfare treadmill?

13
Gestation Crates are One Example of a Market that 

is Increasingly Driven by “Externality” Attributes –

No Direct Benefit or Cost to Consumer

Externality - Actions You Take That Affect 

Others.

Traditional Agricultural Externalities:

 Fertilizer Run-off – Hypoxia in the Gulf

 Row cropping – soil erosion

 Antibiotics in Livestock – Potential 

Resistance

 Manure – Odor, Phosphorus, Nitrogen

14
Sustainable/Organic Agriculture Is Offshoot 

from Externality Driven Agriculture.

Key Point:

Potential Reduction

Of REAL Input Externality.

15
Beginning of Subtle Shift – Is there a 

Direct Benefit to Consumers?

16
Now leading to another subtle change to 

“perceived or “ethical” externalities.

What is the externality of a gestation crate?

•On the Sow?

•On the Consumer?

17
What is the Externality of Business 

Organization?

•Size of Firms

•Business Organization

• Methods of Production

•Do these really directly

affect consumer?

•Stops Story At Production

• What about demand?

18
A Great Grey Area of Real, Perceived 

and Ethical Externalities: Which Is It?

19
An Ignored Externality: The Economic 

Externality – Cost of Food Example

Sow housing load = $3.1 billion (Buhr)

Ban antibiotics load = $1.04 billion (Hayes et al.)

COOL load = $179 million - $1.7 billion (Brester et 

al. and Lusk et al.)

Total policy load = $5.5 billion in pork from what 

amount to issues that have no physical consumer 

externality.

• How do you determine the “value” to the 

consumer of these perceptive externalities?

20
-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

1970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006

wheat

maize

rice

Average Annual Yield Growth Rate, by period

Period Maize Wheat Rice

1967-1996 2.15% 2.02% 2.00%

1997-2006 1.24% 0.78% 0.85%

An Experiment in GMO Bans: Corn, Wheat and Yield 

Trends

Source: Philip Pardey, U of M

21
Food Cost Increases Imposed By Preferences or 

Ethics are Very Regressive On Poor and Real

Food Expenditures By Income Category

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

$5,000 to

$9,999

$10,000 to

$14,999

$15,000 to

$19,999

$20,000 to

$29,999

$30,000 to

$39,999

$40,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 to

$59,999

$70,000 and

More

Income Category

Food Expenditure Share of After Tax 

Income

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

Food Expenditures per Person

Food Expenditure Share of After-Tax Income Food Expenditure Per Person

20% of Households

Spend >20% of 

Budget on Food 50% of Households

Spend >14% of 

Budget on Food

Changing Food 

Composition: “Value Added”

Organic, etc.?

22
Cost Externalities Impact 1/6 of the 

World’s Consumers

“The State of Food Insecurity 

in the World, FAO 2009.

 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/

012/i0876e/i0876e.pdf

23
The Ethics of Efficiency: Egalitarian Food

All People Have Equal Access to Safe, Nutritious Food.

New Policies Driven by Small Vocal Minority and Appealing 

to Wealthy– Leveraging Retailers

‘Voluntary’ Food Price Increases are a Regressive Tax:

 10% Increase Food Cost  3.5% tax on low income 0.8% 

tax on high income

Hidden Tax – If you don’t support policy you pay for higher 

food costs anyway. Consumer Choice?

 E.g., WTP pST free (Buhr, JARE): 50-86% of respondents no WTP.

24
What Does This Mean?

The new battle over food and hunger is not being waged 

on science/policy issues but rather ETHICS.

The agricultural community is not effectively engaging in 

this discussion but activists are.

Agricultural community typically engages the cost 

efficiency and science arguments which are often self 

serving. (e.g., sows must be in gestation crates...)

YOU must begin to clearly articulate the ETHICS of food 

production methods and if agriculture finds ethical 

conflicts it must articulate them and address them. 

25
Conclusion: The Three “E’s”

Externalities – Actions Indirectly Affecting 

Others.

Ethics – REAL values of individuals not just 

preferences.

Egalitarian Foods – Assuring Safe, Ethical, 

Nutritious and Accessible Foods.

26
Thank You

Questions?

27
639

Future welfare of farmers and their animals

John Deen

University of Minnesota

FUTURE WELFARE OF

FARMERS AND

THEIR ANIMALS

OR:

ONE WORLD

ONE HEALTH

ONE WELFARE?

John Deen

University of Minnesota
I think that only daring speculation 

can lead us further and not 

accumulation of facts.

WELFARE POLICY

 The efficient allocation of scarce resources 

to a population

 Implicitly some or all desired outcomes will not 

be maximized

 Usually modeled across a homogeneous 

population

 Heterologous populations and needs create a 

difficult (or wicked) problem to solve

 Much of the information is in shadow values
THREE SOLITUDES

Humans

Wildlife

(leftover 

environment)

Farmed 

Animals
COMPETITION AND CONFLICT

 Welfare

 Food (quantity and security)

 Water (quantity and quality)

 Space (built and leftover)

 Wealth (direct and indirect)

 Power (political and relational)

 Infectious disease (within and across species)

 Quantity of life

 Net relative benefit

 Are objectives always in conflict or can they be 

concomitantly beneficial?
STAN CURTIS:

 An "adaptagent" may be an adverse thermal 

impingement, poor-quality air, social tension, 

vaccination, light quality or quantity, abusive 

or neglectful stockmanship . . . and the list 

goes on

 The animal's "adaptate(s)" come(s) in 

"homeokinetic response" to the "adaptagent" 

and is/are what collaterally/inadvertently 

result(s) in the performance decrement(s) and 

inter-individual variation therein upon which 

we focus in terms of the performance axiom

Curtis, The Professional Animal Scientist 23 (2007):573–583
OPTIMAL USE OF LIMITED RESOURCES

 Land base

 Inputs, especially energy

 Transport costs

 Labor

 Storage

 Preparation

 Societal effects

 What is the objective function?

 Which are to be optimized and which are constraints?

 Is welfare an objective or a constraints?
PERCENTAGE OF DISPOSABLE INCOME

SPENT ON FOOD (WORLDWIDE)

 United States 7.2%

 U.K. 10.2%

 Canada 10.4%

 Japan 15.9%

 France 17.7%

 Mexico 24.0%

 India 48.4%

USDA, 2007
UTILITARIANISM

1. The right action to perform is always the action that 

results in the greatest overall increase in aggregate 

good.

2. We are morally obligated to perform right actions.
IS THIS AN OPTIMAL FOOD?
A GOOD FOOD:

 Corn

 Soy

 Vitamins and minerals

 Formulated through extensive monogastric 

studies

 Restricted allocation

 Clean water

 Delivered in bulk

 Delivered RTE
ETHICAL HUMAN FEEDING?

QUOTATION

Whenever people say “We mustn’t be 

sentimental,” you can take it they are about to 

do something cruel. And if they add “We must 

be realistic,” they mean they are going to make 

money out if it.

Brigid Brophy
REACTION TO:

“In animal agriculture, every 

natural death is a failure. Our 

aim is to kill our stock at an 

economically optimal point or, 

when failing that, the well-being 

of the animal cannot be 

sustained”
MIND TEASER:

 If a human life is worth more than an animal life:

 Three possible conditions:

 1 human life = ∞

 1 animal life = 0

0r 1 human life = n animal lives

But what about the baby in the burning 

barn?
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR MORAL

STANDING (RESOURCE ALLOCATION?)

 Citizenship

 Personhood

 Potential personhood

 Rationality

 Linguistic capacity

 Sentience

 Being alive

 Being an integral part of an ecosystem

 Being an ecosystem
IS THERE A HIERARCHY OF

RESPONSIBILITY?

 Omission vs commission

 Knowledge

 Power

 Culture

 Ownership

 Legality

 Proximity

 Immediacy
MY PRECIOUS
Certified Big 

Red Apple

For Large Animal Enrichment

Scented for swine and stall animals’ 

pleasure
CLAW LESION SCORES IN PENS AND STALLS
THE CHALLENGES

 The burden of proof

 The portrayal of intent (care)

 The use of production records

 The restrictions of economics and its 

portrayal

Mean vs. outlier analysis

 Audits are outlier identifications
ARISTOTLE: A GOOD NARRATIVE

 Logos is appeal based on logic or reason.

 Ethos is appeal based on the character of the 

speaker. 

 Pathos is appeal based on emotion.

 HL Green: The three types of persuasion, if you 

are a classically trained orator, are ethos, pathos, 

and logos. If your training was obtained in 

modern times, you have an additional toolstatistics.
CHOICES

Accept and magnify duality

 Cultural warfare model

Stick to mechanistic descriptions 

and maintain neutrality

 Centrality of science

Quantify

Evaluate

Create a narrative
SUGGESTED NARRATIVE

 Intent

 Role of farmers

 Animals

 Consumption

 Care

 Failings

 Ineffective resource allocation

 Ignorance

 Abuse

 Uncontrollable conditions

 Redemption

 Monitor

 Improve

 Prevent
 Show up 

 Highlight caregivers

 Focus on intent

 Illustrate experience

 Admit failures

 Offer your expertise

 Fairs, tours, interpretive centers, debates

How do we gain trust?
Time Saving 

Truth from 

Falsehood and Envy

François Lemoyne

670

Panel: Comprehensive analysis of certification and regulatory 

programs: What is the future?

Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton

Mississippi State University (Poultry Industry)
671

World and U.S. population growth: How can we feed everyone?

William Weldon

Elanco Animal Health
Food Economics and Consumer Choice

TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Why agriculture needs technology to help meet a growing 

demand for safe, nutritious and affordable food
1 Green, R. et al. January 2005. “Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature.” Science 307.5709: 550-555; and Tilman, D. et al. August 2002. “Agricultural sustainability and intensive 

production practices.” Nature 418.6898: 671-677. 2 “World Agriculture: toward 2015/2030.” 2002. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Accessed 12/8/08. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf>.

TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

An overview of the challenge ahead
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

• Consequences of failing to use science-based

technologies/innovations will be disastrous

• We all share responsibility to ensure new & proven

agricultural technologies are available

• Driven by food production efficiency, agriculture can

achieve the “ultimate win” for consumers:

• Affordability

• Abundant supply

• Food safety 

• Sustainability 

• Ample grain for biofuels

Working together, we can achieve an “ultimate win”
Hines, A. July-August 2008. “Consumer Trends in Three Different ‘Worlds.’” The Futurist.

TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

Will population growth outpace the global food supply?

•First World (W1)

Total estimated population, 

2008: <1 billion

•Second World (W2)

Total estimated population, 

2008: 3-4 billion

•Third World (W3)

Total estimated population, 

2008: 1-2 billion
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

• In the 20th century, ag productivity in industrialized nations

expanded at a phenomenal rate

• USDA cites ag technologies (advances in genetics,

nutrition, disease/pest control & livestock management)

as important factors for this increased productivity1,2

• Refining these technologies & discovering new ones will

be critical to expanding productivity improvements in this

century

Agricultural technology: past, present & future

1 Fuglie, K., MacDonald, J., Ball, E. September 2007. “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 

Economic Brief No. 9.

2 Ahearn, M., Yee, J. et al. January 1998. “Agricultural Productivity in the United States.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 

Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 740.
1 Ahearn, M., Yee, J. et al. January 1998. “Agricultural Productivity in the United States.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Agriculture 

Information Bulletin No. 740. 

TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

20th-Century technology improved ag productivity1
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

The consumer perspective

• Only 7% worry about agricultural production methods1

• Only 1% cite biotechnology as a top-of-mind concern1

• Most assume the meat/poultry they buy is safe2

• Only 17% in 2008 were interested in knowing about food

animal production (~60% had little/no interest)2

• Primary food concern in 2008: affordability3

1 “2008 Food Biotechnology: A Study of U.S. Consumer Trends.” August 2008. International Food Information council.

2 Studies sponsored by the animal health industry in partnership with Elanco Animal Health. 2001 study conducted by Ipsos Reid; 2004 study conducted by Forward 

Research; 2008 study conducted by Ipsos Forward Research.

3 “Research Study: Consumer Trust in the Food System.” October 2008. The Center for Food Integrity.
1 “Research Study: Consumer Trust in the Food System.” October 2008. The Center for Food Integrity.

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

The consumer perspective (continued)
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

The consumer perspective (continued)

• Consumers trust farmers most to ensure food safety1

1 “Research Study: Consumer Trust in the Food System.” October 2008. The Center for Food Integrity.
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

The consumer perspective (continued)

• Consumers also want choice

• Those who prefer organic foods deserve that choice

• 75% of the world’s population can’t afford organic foods

• All consumer preferences can & should be protected
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

Why is technology so important for meeting

the global demand for food and consumer choice?
1 Capper JL, et al. July 2008. “Comparing the environmental impact of dairy production in 1944 to 2007.” Abstract. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 86, E-Suppl. 2/J. Dairy Sci. Vol. 91, E-Suppl. 1.

TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

Technology helps 

food producers 

provide more highquality grains & 

protein sources 

using fewer 

resources
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

Technology can optimize affordability & consumer choice 

— especially in developing nations

• USDA reports price premiums for organic foods:1,2

• 100%+ for vegetables

• 200% for chicken

• ~300% for eggs 

• Organic agriculture may be “a realistic alternative” in 

30 years, but only on a local level3

• Efforts to maximize choice & production efficiencies (&

lower costs) for all foods—including organics—deserve

support throughout the global food chain

1 Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C. and Greene, C. 2005. “Price Premiums Hold on as U.S. Organic Produce Market Expands.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic 

Research Service. VGS-308-01. 2 Oberholtzer, L., Greene, C., and Lopez, E. 2006. “Organic Poultry and Eggs Capture High Price Premiums and Growing Share of Specialty Markets.” United States 

Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. lDP-M-150-01. 3 World Agriculture: toward 2015/2030. 2002. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf>.
1 Avery AA and Avery DA. 2007. “The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production.” Hudson Institute. Washington, D.C. 

TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

Technology helps 

minimize global 

environmental 

impact of increased 

food production
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

Conclusions

1. The global food industry needs technology

2. Consumers deserve the widest possible variety of safe 

& affordable food choices

3. The food production system can mitigate the food 

economics challenge & achieve an “ultimate win”:

• Improving the affordability of food

• Increasing the food supply

• Ensuring food safety

• Increasing sustainability

• Producing more biofuels w/no negative effect on food supply
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Food Economics and Consumer Choice

Pathways to success:

• Collaboration

• Choice

• Technology
688

Should there be biotechnology in the future of animal agriculture?

L. Val Giddings

PrometheusAB, Inc.
Sustaining Animal Agriculture: 

Balancing Bioethical, Economic, 

and Social Issues

CAST Food & Animal Agriculture 

Symposium

10 June 2010

Jefferson Auditorium USDA Ag South Building 

Washington, DC
Should there be 

Biotechnology 

in our Future?

L. Val Giddings, Ph.D. 

President, PrometheusAB, Inc. 

Advanced Expertise in US & Global Biotechnology

What a silly question...

Let’s review, briefly:
What IS biotechnology, 

anyway?

• Fermentation

• Tissue culture

• Embryo rescue

• Somatic cell transplantation

• Marker assisted breeding

• Genome sequencing

• Transgenics

• Etc.
Society has already 

answered the question:

--unequivocal “YES”
The Real question is --

how BEST to use biotechnology?

along with all the other tools

we will need in the 21st century...
Crop Biotech has been adopted 

at historically unprecedented 

rates

• Similarly transforming events:

• Plowing ~Hundreds/thousands of years

• Hybrid seed (maize) ~ decades/thousands

• Biotech improved varieties -- handful of 

years until biotech = conventional
Why?
Because biotech delivers...

• Higher yields per hectare

• Lower input costs

• Solutions to farmers’ problems (weeds, pests, 

disease, environmental constraints)

• Less farmer labor

• Higher farmer profits

• Higher quality/safer harvests/foods
2008 Summary data on biotech crop area by country 

for the top 25 countries(James, 2009).
Global area of biotech crops (in acres and hectares) per year (James, 2009).
2008 global data showing quantity and proportion 

of biotech vs conventional area for the top four crops(James, 2009) .
Annual growth and area of leading biotech traits (James, 2009).
Annual growth and area for biotech varieties 

of the top four crops(James, 2009) .
Global area (hectares) of biotech crops and traits per year, 

superimposed on a map showing the top 25 countries (James, 2009).
IMPACT ANALYSES IN THE 

PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE

• Brookes et al. 2010 & Brookes & Barfoot, 2010 -- full 

reports available on www.pgeconomics.co.uk

• Peer reviewed journal: AgBioForum (2010) 13 (1) 25-52 

& AgBioForum 13 (1) 76-94; also at 

www.agbioforum.org

• Cumulative impacts: 1996-2008

• Farm income & productivity impacts: focuses on farm 

income, yield, production

• Environmental impact analysis covering pesticide spray 

changes & associated environmental impact

• Environmental impact analysis: greenhouse gas 

emissions

©PG Economics Ltd 2008
Ag Biotech Impacts to date:

source = http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/

• Greenhouse gas reductions in 2008 = 

15.6 B kg CO2 (6.9 M cars for 1 year)

• 352 M kg reduction in pesticide AI sprays 1996-

2008 ~120% EU use in 1 year

• 58% of income gains to LDC farmers in 2007; 

50% from 1996-2007

• +79.7 M tons corn, +74 M tons soy, +8.6 M t 

cotton & 4.8 M t canola since 1996
Ag Biotech Impacts (cont.):

source = http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/ 

• Average yield gains (1996-2007) corn = 6%; 

cotton = 13%.

• Highest yield gains by developing country 

farmers.

• Added production (1996-2007) energy savings 

enough to feed 402 M people for 1 year; in 

2007 88 M (Philippines)

• Without biotech would have taken additional 4.6 

M ha soya, 3.5M ha maize, 2.2 M ha cotton; 

~ 21% of arable land in Brasil, 6% of US
Yield gains versus cost savings

• 43% ($14.54 billion) of total farm income gain due to 

yield gains 1996-2006

• Balance due to cost savings

• Yield gains mainly from IR technology 

• Cost savings mainly from HT technology

• Yield gains greatest in developing countries 

• Cost savings mainly in developed countries

• HT technology also facilitated no tillage systems –

allowed second crops (soy) in the same season in S 

America

©PG Economics Ltd 2008
Additional global production on 

areas planted to biotech crops 

in 2006

•Soybeans: +20%

•Corn: +7%

•Cotton: +15%

•Canola: +3%

©PG Economics Ltd 2008
Impact on pesticide use

• Significant reduction in global environmental 

impact of production agriculture

• Since 1996 use of pesticides down by 352 m kg 

(-8.4%) & associated environmental impact -

16.3% - equivalent to total EU pesticide active 

ingredient use on arable crops in one year!

• Largest environmental gains from IR cotton: 

savings of 5.6 million kg insecticide use & 25% 

reduction in associated environmental impact of 

insecticides

©PG Economics Ltd 2008
Reduced GHG emissions: 1996-

2006

• less fuel use = 5.8 billion kg CO2 emission 

saving (2.6 m cars off the road)

• additional soil carbon sequestration = 63.9 

billion kg CO2 saving if land retained in 

permanent no tillage. BUT only a 

proportion remains in continuous no till so 

real figure is lower (lack of data means 

not possible to calculate)

©PG Economics Ltd 2008
How do we know 

this stuff is safe?
Fact:

• Crops improved through biotechnology 

have been subjected to more scrutiny, in 

advance, in depth and detail, than any 

other crops in human history.

• The safety record is without blemish. 

(there have been a few compliance issues)

• Suggestions to the contrary are 

inaccurate.
Indeed, the use of more precise technology and 

the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make [GM 

foods] even safer than conventional plants and 

foods;...

...the benefits of these plants and products for 

human health and the environment become 

increasingly clear.

--European Commission, Press Release of 8 October 2001, announcing

the release of 15 year study incl 81 projects/70M euros, 400 teams

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp5/eag-gmo.html and

http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp5/pdf/eag-gmo.pdf )
Food from GM Maize is more healthy than 

from conventionally grown maize... 

samples with the highest fumonisin 

concentrations are found in products 

labeled “organic.”

--Commission on Green Biotechnology, Union 

of the German Academies of Science & Humanities, at

www.abic2004.org/download/reportongmohazards.pdf
The fact is, arguments that we do not have 

enough information to assess the risks 

grow weaker by the year. Tens of billions 

of meals with GM foods have been eaten. 

This real-world experiment, Australian 

Academy of Science president Jim Peacock 

observes, has had no documented ill 

effects on human health.

--The Age (Australia), 20 Feb 2006
The risks GE crops pose for the environment, and 

especially biodiversity, have been extensively 

assessed worldwide during the past ten years of 

commercial cultivation. Consequently, 

substantial scientific data on environmental 

effects of the currently commercialized GE crops 

is available today.... The data available so far 

provide no scientific evidence that the 

commercial cultivation of GE crops has 

caused environmental harm.

-- Olivier Sanvido. Michele Stark, Jorg Romeis & Franz Bigler. 

Ecological impacts of genetically engineered crops: Ten years of 

field research and commercial cultivation. ISB News Report, 

December 2006, pp. 6-9. www.isb.vt.edu.
Anti-GM campaigns have focused on possible 

environmental and food safety concerns 

associated with GM crops and food products. 

The likely position is, in fact, the complete 

opposite. GM crops offer potentially 

significant health and environmental 

benefits. For example, adoption of GM varieties 

has transformed the Australian cotton industry’s 

environmental performance, reducing insecticide 

use by 70 per cent over the past decade.

Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group, Government of 

Australia. 2006. in a report titled Creating our Future: Agriculture and 

Food policy for the Next Generation. At

http://www.agfoodgroup.gov.au/next_generation.html
Mariann Fischer Boel

EU Commissioner of Agriculture

• The EU is lagging behind the rest of the world over 

genetically modified food and imports are being blocked 

because the authorisation process is so slow, according 

to the EU's agriculture chief.

• this is not because evidence of risk has been found. 

Instead, it is because the political decision is being 

"knocked around like a ball in a slow-motion tennis 

match“

16 October 2009. EU chief calls for path of GM imports to be 

eased. FoodBizDaily.com. http://foodbizdaily.com/articles/93321-eu-chiefcalls-for-path-of-gm-imports-to.aspx.
"Month after month, GMOs receive a clean 

bill of health from EFSA but then get stuck 

because member states cannot get a 

qualified majority, in favour or against, 

when it comes to the proposal on 

authorisation...ludicrous“

– Mariann Fischer Boel, EU Commissioner of Agriculture; 

20 October, 2009.

 http://www.independent.ie/farming/fischer-boelslams-irish-stance-on-gm-1918260.html.
So...

...what about animals?
“The greatest challenge of the 

21st century: feeding 9 billion 

people with a sustainable 

agricultural production 

system.”--Chrispeels, 2000
GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHY

• 1999 -- 70% of people grow what they eat

• 2025 -- 50% will live in cities, will need to 

be fed through market channels.
FAO Projections...

• “...prices above historic equilibrium levels 

during the next ten years...”

• higher costs for animal feed

• Demand increase 100% over 40y

• By 2020 animal ag will produce 50% of ag

production value

• Be responsible for 20% global GHG 

emissions...
How can we 

increase production 

by 100% in 40 years?
What’s the first thing a society 

does under economic uplift?
Increases protein consumption
FAO – SOFIA (State of World 

Fisheries & Aquaculture 2008)

• ALL fisheries at or exceeding sustainable 

yields; too many have already collapsed

• Future demands will double

• Aquaculture essential

• Environmental impacts non trivial –

disease, pollution, feed conversion
Closed-circuit production = 

partial answer

• Tilapia

• Trout 

• Salmon
To double production 

FAO estimates 

gains will come from:

• additional farmlands 20%

• increased intensity 10%

• innovative technologies 70%
biotechnology
Where can biotechnology help?

virtually every livestock 

production or quality constraint 

can be mitigated or overcome 

through biotechnology

many biomedical applications as 

well
Conformation

QTL MAB

CNV

GWAS

Nuclear

transfer

Metabolomics

Proteomics

From Tools to Traits... Agricultural Biomedical/ High Value

((( (((

Meat/milk

quality

Environmental

Tolerance

↑ Productivity Disease

resistance

Biopharm

Xenotransplant

HiValProducts

Disease

models cells organs

tissues

biologics

drugs

Genomics

Breeding

Φtype

assays

Meat/milk

composition

Environmental 

footprint

Hardiness

Fertility/

Fecundity

Micro

injection devices
“...Societies initially lacking an 

advantage either acquire it from 

societies possessing it or (if they 

fail to do so) are replaced by 

those other societies.” --Jared Diamond

in Guns, Germs and Steel;

W.W. Norton, 1998, p. 407
“Instead of rejecting the solutions offered 

by science, we should change policies to 

assure that the solutions benefit the 

poor... Condemning biotechnology for its 

potential risks without considering the 

alternative risks of prolonging the human 

misery caused by hunger, malnutrition 

and child death is unwise and unethical.”

-- Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 

Director General, International 

Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Further information:

• The Future of Animal Agriculture 2030: Future Trends in Animal 

Agriculture, USDA 2 December 2009 

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/FTAAProceedings/FTAA_2009.p

df

• Ethical Implications of Animal Biotechnology: CAST Issue Paper 

46/June 2010 http://www.castscience.org/displayProductDetails.asp?idProduct=169

• Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in 

the United States. 13 April 2010. 

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Recor

dID=12804
THANKS!

• USDA

• CAST

• Dr. Barb Glenn, BIO/CLA

• Dr. Larisa Rudenko, USFDA

• Clive James/ISAAA

• Graham Brookes, Peter Barfoot, 

colleagues/PG Economics
738

Agricultural Productivity Strategies for the Future

Gale Buchanan

Former USDA Under Secretary
Council for Agricultural 

Science and Technology

John M. Bonner, Ph.D.

Executive Vice President, CEO
The CAST Mission

CAST assembles, interprets, and communicates credible, 

science-based information regionally, nationally, and 

internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the 

media, the private sector, and the public

• CAST is a nonprofit organization composed of scientific 

societies and many individual, student, company, 

nonprofit, and associate society members

• CAST uses volunteer key scientific authors and reviewers

• CAST provides credible, understandable science-based 

information to your staff and to the public
Primary Objective

•The primary work of CAST is the 

publication of task force reports, 

commentary papers, and issue papers 

written by scientists from many disciplines 

•The wide distribution of CAST publications 

to nonscientists enhances the education 

and understanding of the general public 
Website

Visit CAST Online

www.cast-science.org

The above map depicts: 26,311 visits from 17 Jan 2008 to 17 Jan 2009
Friday Notes

•Published 48 times each year

•More than 60 current agricultural

news items-- gleaned from 100+

sources

•News articles are categorized in

areas of emphasis that parallel

the three CAST work groups, and

the “page 1” stories often feature

CAST activities

•Washington, D.C. congressional

updates from Meyers and

Associates
CAST Issue Paper 45

January 2010

Agricultural Productivity Strategies 

for the Future: 

Addressing U.S. and Global Challenges

West view of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol.)
Issue Paper Authors

• Gale Buchanan (Chair)

– College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

– The University of Georgia, Tifton Campus

• Robert W. Herdt

– Department of Applied Economics and Management

– Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

• Luther G. Tweeten

– Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics

– The Ohio State University, Columbus

Preface Author

• Norman E. Borlaug, Professor Emeritus (1914 – 2009)

– Texas A&M University

– College Station
Issue Paper Reviewers and CAST Liaison

Issue Paper Reviewers

• Charles F. Connor

– National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

– Washington, D.C.

• Charles E. Hess

– Department of Plant Science

– University of California, Davis

• Per Pinstrup-Andersen

– College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

– Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

CAST Liaison

• Henry L. Shands

– Fort Collins, Colorado
9

Agricultural Science and the Public.

1973. CAST Paper No. 1

Dr. Norman E. Borlaug

1914 - 2009
Introduction

• Success of agriculture

• Issues this paper addresses

• Issues not addressed

• Correcting pathologies in the U.S. 

economy

• Future role of agriculture in meeting the 

energy and climate control challenge

• Future success of agriculture through 

enhanced productivity

10
Future Demands Facing Agriculture

• Principal drivers of global demand for 

agricultural output

• One billion people who today rarely 

get enough to eat

• Projections show 2025 demand for 

farm products will be 143% of 2000 

demand

11
Bioenergy and Bioproducts Bring About 

a New Paradigm for Agriculture

• We can visualize, if not see, the end of cheap

petroleum

• Harvesting the sun’s energy is one approach 

to meeting the energy challenge

• Competition for resources will require hard 

choices

• Unfolding of this process will mean an 

almost limitless demand for agricultural 

output

12
Emerging Constraints on Future 

Agricultural Productivity in the U.S.

• We are aware of present 

constraints; others are emerging

• It is prudent to plan for all

13
Soil, Water and Crop Issues

• Soil erosion is a long-term problem

• Water quality and quantity are 

affected by farming and irrigation 

practices

• Bioengineered crops offer benefits 

to agriculture but raise concerns in 

some countries

14
Animal Welfare Issues

• Most people recognize that animal 

agriculture is “under fire” in some areas

• Society as a whole will largely determine 

and set social and moral standards in 

animal agriculture

• Certain production practices, if 

implemented, will place further demands 

on agriculture

15
Challenges in Animal Agriculture

• Reduction of green house gas (GHG) emissions 

• Balancing types of confinement with free range systems

• Developing alternatives to antibiotics and addressing 

antibiotic resistance

• Identifying more effective means of handling animal 

waste

• Enabling the public to gain a better understanding and 

appreciation for the importance of animal agriculture

• Developing better animal health products

• Food security

• Capturing the power of biotechnology

16
Endangered Species Act

• Preserving diversity comes at a 

price

• We must weigh costs vs. benefits

17
Fertilizer Resources

• Sustainability of agriculture requires 

a sustainable source of plant 

nutrients

─ Nitrogen

─ Potassium

─ Phosphorus

18
Global Warming

• Global warming will have an 

influence on agriculture by affecting 

the demand for natural resources

─ the crops we grow

─ the location of crop production

─ the availability of water: some areas 

too much, other areas too little

19
Major Issues Facing Agricultural 

Productivity Outside the U.S.

• Must consider agriculture from a global 

perspective

– China: expected growing demand for food 

has not affected global ecosystem in past 

decade

– India: great potential for increased production

– Brazil: continued growth of agriculture is 

possible, but there are environmental 

concerns

– Sub-Saharan Africa: recent increases in 

agricultural GDP, but significant challenges 

remain

20
Strategies to Meet Future Agriculture 

Needs for Agricultural Output

• Success requires a supportive 

institutional structure

• Generally, this support must come 

from the public sector

21
Assist Less-Developed Countries (LDC)

• Approaches

–Provide food and medical support

– Help build institutional and 

intellectual capacity

– Develop international agreements 

and trade

• Must be greater commitment for 

sustained support for research

22
The “Next Green Revolution”

• Strong commitment to science is 

necessary to meet future challenges

• Remember Dr. Borlaug’s challenge

• How do we go about making the 

Next Green Revolution happen?

23
Commitment of ALL branches of Science 

• Basic science

• Applied science

• Classical genetics

• Biotechnology

• Other areas such as nanotechnology

24
A Few Ideas That We Suggest 

Should Be Considered

• Enabling C3 plants to utilize the C4 photosynthetic 

pathway

• Nitrogen fixation in non-legumes

• Incorporating the process of apomixis into crop 

plants

• Improving pest resistance in plants

• Improving energy efficiency of plants

• Effectively and efficiently capturing all animal waste

• Eliminating all respiratory diseases of livestock 

• Utilizing the power of genomics and biotechnology 

to improve food animals

25
What is the Commitment to Agricultural Research 

to Bring about Another Green Revolution?

• Few signs the nations of the world are 

making the commitment to the research 

needed to bring about a second Green 

Revolution

• Linkage between agricultural research and 

productivity is unquestioned

• Bottom line: “We (all nations) must 

strengthen our commitment to research!”

26
Conclusions

• Challenges are real 

• Agriculture’s challenge is food, 

feed, fiber, flowers, and now fuel 

or energy

• Convergence of so many 

challenges at one time is 

unprecedented – “The Perfect 

Storm”

27
Strategies for Meeting the Challenges

• Meeting the challenges of maintaining and 

enhancing agricultural productivity 

requires broad-based support

• It will require constant public commitment 

to acquire adequate funding for 

agricultural research and education

• Greatest concern felt by the authors

• Remain hopeful and confident

28
Thank you for your attention!

29
For a free download of 

the entire 

Issue Paper 45:

Visit the 

CAST Website @

www.cast-science.org

Questions/Discussion
769

Sustainability myths and musts—key issues for animal agriculture 

moving forward

Jason W. Clay

World Wildlife Fund-US
Sustainability Myths and Musts—

Key Issues for Animal Agriculture Moving Forward

Jason Clay, Ph.D

SVP, Market Transformation

WWF-US 

June 3, 2010 
“You can’t wake a person who’s 

pretending to sleep”

Oromo Proverb
population x consumption ≠ planet

We need to use less . . . 

. . . to produce more from less. 
Should consumers have a choice 

about sustainable products?
Myth 1—Most agricultural commodities 

are traded internationally
Myth 2—Most globally traded agriculture 

raw materials are produced in developing 

countries
However, World Meat Production Has Been 

Shifting to Developing Countries
And most global aquaculture production is in 

developing countries

Year

1974 1984 1994 2004

Aquaculture Production (mt x 10

6

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Developing Nations

Developed Nations
Myth 3—Most people eat a wide range 

of different foods
Ranking by Daily Caloric Intake

Food Crop

Total Crop 

Calories 

(2003)

Direct 

Consumption

Indirect 

(Animal

Protein) 

Consumption

1 Wheat 559 518 41

2 Rice 541 541 --

3 Corn 372 152 220

4 Sugarcane & 

Sugar beets 244 244 --

5 Soybeans 180 108 72

6 Potatoes 60 60 --

7 Palm Oil 57 57 --

8 Barley 49 8 41

9 Sorghum 45 32 13

10 Sunflowers 44 30 14

11 Cassava 43 43 --

12 Rapeseed 40 28 12

13 Peanuts 39 39 --

14 Cotton Seed 

Oil 11 -- --

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Cotton Seed Oil

Peanuts

Rapeseed

Cassava

Sunflowers

Sorghum

Barley

Palm Oil

Potatoes

Soybeans

Sugarcane & Sugarbeets

Corn

Rice

Wheat

Daily Calories Per Capita

World Daily Caloric Intake

Direct 

Consumption
World Projected Caloric Distribution Change

Source: Calories in 2000 as reported by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

Cereals

47.7%

Sugar & Sweeteners

8.6%

Other

4.8%

Vegetable Oils

10.9%

Fish

0.9% Dairy

4.6%

Eggs

1.1%

Starchy Roots

5.5%

Oilcrops

1.7%

Pulses

2.0%

Poultry

1.7%

Beef

1.3%

Pork

4.0%

Vegetables

2.6%Fruits

2.7%

Total Calories Delivered Per Capita Per Day in 2000

World Average 2,712

Cereals

41.0%

Sugar & Sweeteners

9.1%

Vegetable Oils

15.0%

Dairy

5.3%

Fish

1.0%

Eggs

2.3%

Other

5.5%

Fruits

3.0%

Vegetables

2.5%

Pork

3.6%

Beef

1.2%

Poultry

2.6%

Pulses

1.7%

Oilcrops

1.9%

Starchy Roots

4.3%

Total Calories Delivered Per Capita Per Day in 2050

World Average 3,226
Myth 4—Income from agriculture and 

food production is declining in most 

countries
Myth 5—Stocking density is the best 

indicator of animal welfare.
Myth 6—Buying locally is the most 

significant way to reduce GHGs from 

food production. 
“The Problem of What to Eat” Conservation. Natasha Loder, Elizabeth Finkel, Craig Meisner, 

and Pamela Ronald. July-September 2008 9(3):31 
Myth 7—The price of food is increasing

Myth 8—The price of food covers the 

cost of the resources used to produce it.
Agriculture’s Global Footprint

33% of Earth’s surface in crops or 

grazing but 58% of habitable area
Beef is responsible for >60% of all land 

used by people for food production, but 

produces <2% of calories
Not all impacts are direct

China and the EU import soy from Brazil

But are buying water, soil, and reduced pollution

Agriculture uses 70% of water used by humans
26

Key water-related challenges:

Introduction
1 Cotton T-shirt

1 liter of soda

1 oz. slice of 

cheese

1 double quarterpounder

Selected Products, Water Use and Farmer Income

Raw material

input

4 oz ginned

6 T sugar

6 oz milk

8 oz 

hamburger

Water to 

produce input

500 to 2,000 

liters of water

175-250 liters 

of water

40 liters of 

water

3,000 to 15,000 

liters of water

Farm gate price

US$0.20 

(Aust.)

US$0.006 

(Brazil)

US$0.03 (US)

US$0.25 (US)
Global Trends by 2050

• Population—3 billion more

• Income will increase by 2.9 times

• Consumption will double

• 70% will live in cities—as many as are alive today
Impacts that are acceptable with 6.8 billion
Will not be with 9.4 billion people
Freezing the Footprint of Food

How to triple food production on the same amount of land by 2050

300% 300%

250% 250%

200% 200%

150% 150%

100%

2000 2025 2050

Genetics 50% Underperforming Land 25% Overconsumption 5%

Poor Management Practices 50% Property Rights 20%

Technology 40% Waste 10%
You manage what you measure.

But, producing anything has of impacts. 

So, what should we measure?
What are the right metrics for animal agriculture?

Head per hectare land?

Kg per hectare of land?

Kg of produce per M3 of water?

Calories per hectare?

Grams of protein per hectare?

Cost of production per calorie of production?

Kg of C avoided or sequestered /ha or /MT of production?
We must shift our thinking from trying to 

maximize any one variable
to optimizing the key ones 
BMPs
Sustainability—Better Practices or Performance? 

Performance Curve

Regulation / 

Worse 

Performance Better 

Performance
Producing Cattle—Better and Worse

 Same rainfall, soils and species

 Same place (1 mile apart)

 Pictures taken the same day

 4 times more cattle and more wildlife

The only difference is management
efficiency—improve production
Poultry—Efficiency & Markets
animal welfare
Is stocking density is the best measure of 

animal welfare?

Some other possible indicators from aquaculture include:

• Feed conversion ratios (FCRs)

• Time to market

• Survival rates

• Disease outbreaks

• Medicines used per MT of product

• Water quality
Some Issues Moving Forward

On a finite planet, sustainability is a necessity

A precompetitive issue—need to work together, collude

Be strategic, focus on only a few impacts.

Understand the global performance baseline and range

Understand regional differences

Focus on results, not just BMPs or continuous improvement

Be technology neutral
Reinforcing Market Trends

Supply chains are longer than ever and have fewer players

Supply chains are moving from transactional to partnerships

Purchases are trending away from spot markets to more 

long term contracts

Don’t forget finance

Carbon (and water) will change the economics
“If you don’t know where you’re going

any road will get you there.”

816

Trade considerations and OIE guidelines

Phil Seng

US Meat and Export Federation

Trade considerations

and OIE guidelines

Philip Seng

U.S. Meat Export Federation
Growth in pork consumption

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

19951997

199920012003

2005

200720092011

20132015

2017

Rest of world +20% 

+18 Million MT

U.S.: +6.7%, 590 thousand MT

Source: OECD/FAO; thousand MT

Projected growth from 2008 to 2018

Projected increase in global pork 

consumption is 18.66 million 

MT. This is 1.8 times (nearly 

double) the pork produced in the 

U.S in 2008.
Growth in beef consumption

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

19951997

199920012003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

20152017

Rest of world +15% 

+7.768 Million MT

U.S.: +5.5%, 680 thousand MT

Source: OECD/FAO; thousand MT

Projected growth from 2008 to 2018

Global beef consumption in 2018 is 

expected to be 8.448 million MT 

larger than 2008 consumption. This 

increase equates to roughly three 

quarters of the beef currently 

produced in the U.S.
The critical role of OIE

• Development of internationally 

recognized standards for food safety 

and animal welfare

– 176 member countries and territories

• Collect, analyze and disseminate 

veterinary scientific information

• Encourage international solidarity in 

approaching issues

Role of livestock in

sustainable agriculture

• Balancing the need to feed a growing 

population with responsible animal 

agriculture practices

– 109% growth in meat production since 1980

– Most growth from China (6-fold) and India (4-

fold)

– Globally, most growth achieved through more 

animals rather than increased productivity 
Sustainable agriculture issues

• Many governments link national/global food 

security objectives to sustainability concepts 

– Livestock use 1/3 of cereals produced globally

– Land for grazing and crops for feed equals about 80% 

of all agricultural land

– 86% of water consumption for agriculture

• Agriculture is a major contributor to 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

– FAO estimates livestock production contributes 15-

24% of GHG emissions
Critical issues

• Private standards 

– Differing views in established vs. developing countries

– Potential for trade problems

• Animal welfare

– Need for baseline for measurement

– Lower priority in countries where hunger is an issue

• Sustainability

– Lacking consistent definition, measurement
Private standards

• Food Safety

– 62% believe private standards for sanitary 

safety may create significant benefits

• 87% of developed countries agree

• 30% of developing countries agree

– 82% agree these standards may create 

significant trade problems for their exports

• Compliance costs

• Lack of basis in science

• Lack of transparency

Korea Beef Traceability System

(www.mtrace.go.kr): April 2009
Japan: In-store Beef Traceability 

Kiosks
Taiwan: Trial Traceability Coding


EU anti-cloning initiative

• EU Council of Ministers European 

Parliament’s environmental committee 

votes not to authorize the entry of any food 

derived from cloned animals into the EU

– Would ban products from clones, offspring or 

their produce

• New German (Testbiotech) report states 

that cloned foods could have adverse 

human health effects
Private standards

• Animal welfare

– 64% say animal welfare private standards 

create benefits

• 89% of developed countries agree

• 40% of developing countries disagree

– 46% agree these standards may create 

significant trade problems for their exports

• Excluding the EU, 76% believe these private 

standards may create export problems (87% for 

developing countries)

– Transportation & slaughter requirements
EU animal welfare regulations

proposed for Jan. 1, 2013

• No more sow stalls

• No more caged laying hens

• Maximum transport time for cattle & hogs 

proposed at 8 hours

• EU requirements for conditions at 

slaughter to apply to imports
A European animal welfare group said late last week it signed a 

declaration uniting like organizations in the European Union and 

the United States in an effort to ensure that animal welfare 

standards are included in transatlantic trade. 

The declaration signed by Eurogroup for Animals, which represents animal welfare organizations 

in all EU member states, creates the Transatlantic Animal Welfare Council (TAWC), the group 

said in a news release. 

Formation of TAWC follows the creation in 2007 of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), 

which aims to strengthening transatlantic cooperation in removing trade barriers. TAWC will work 

with EU and U.S. authorities to ensure that trade discussions take into consideration the "special 

nature of animals as sentient beings and of consequent concerns for their welfare," the release 

stated. 

"This declaration will work to ensure that the USA and EU member state governments integrate 

animal welfare in their bilateral and multilateral trade agreements in future and also urge private 

companies to consider animal welfare in their CSR and supply chain policies," said Sonja Van 

Tichelen, Director of Eurogroup for Animals. 

Signatories to the declaration in addition to Eurogroup for Animals are: 

Animal Welfare Institute 

Compassion in World Farming 

Global Animal Partnership 

The Humane Society of the United States 

Humane Society International 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 

Royal Society for the Protection of Animals 

World Society for the Protection of Animals 

UK retailer leads the way

• Morrisons becomes first top 4 UK retailer 

to use 100% British free-range eggs for its 

private label

– 9 months ahead of forecast

– 2 years ahead of EU-wide ban on battery 

cages


Conclusions

• Pressures on international trade in ag 

products are increasing 

• Uniform approach is needed (OIE)

– Others unfriendly to meat will fill the vacuum

– Approach taken on BSE is good model
842

Are the poor a recognized stakeholder?

Joseph Glauber

USDA Chief Economist
Sustainable Animal Production 

Practices and Consumer Demand

Joseph W. Glauber

Chief Economist, USDA

CAST Symposium on Sustaining Animal Agriculture

June 10, 2010
Outline

• Recent trends in per capita consumption of 

animal products

• Consumption by income levels

• Effects of price increases on demand by 

income level

• Consumer preference for sustainable animal 

production practices

• International implications
US per capita meat consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19091914191919241929193419391944194919541959196419691974197919841989199419992004

Beef

Pork

Chicken

Pounds, retail weight equivalent
US Per Capita Consumption of Dairy Products

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

Pounds, milk equivalent, milk fat basis
US Per Capita Egg Consumption

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990

1992 1994 

19961998

2000

20022004

2006 2008 

Shell egg equivalent
US consumption of beef and pork by household 

income as percent of poverty threshold

Income/poverty 

threshold ratio

Population

(%)

Beef

(lbs per capita)

Pork

(lbs per capita)

Under 130 percent 19.2 71.9 54.0

131 - 350 percent 41.8 67.6 52.4

Over 350 percent 39.0 62.6 48.0

Source: Davis and Lin 2005 based on data from USDA ARS 2000: 1994-96 and 1998

Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
Food consumption by income level

Group Food as a share 

of total 

expenditures

Food at home 

as share of 

total food 

expenditures

Meat, poultry,

eggs as share 

of total food at 

home

Meat, poultry,

eggs as share 

of total 

expenditures

All 12.8% 58.1% 19.2% 1.4%

Lowest 20% 15.6% 68.2% 19.8% 2.1%

Second 20% 14.4% 64.2% 20.7% 1.9%

Third 20% 13.1% 61.3% 20.5% 1.7%

Fourth 20% 12.9% 57.2% 18.5% 1.4%

Highest 20% 11.3% 51.4% 17.9% 1.0%

Source: BLS, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2008
Effect of higher prices on consumers

own price elasticities

Commodity All Low income Middle 

income

High income

Beef -0.3540 -0.2929 -0.2615 -0.4080

Pork -0.6867 -0.7199 -0.6349 -0.6729

Other meat -0.3554 -0.5125 -0.293 -0.2957

Poultry -0.6437 -0.5738 -0.6317 -0.6632

Dairy -0.7949 -0.7818 -0.8144 -0.7731

Eggs -0.0569 -0.1849 0.0159 -0.0491

Source: Huang and Lin 2000.
Consumer preferences for sustainable 

animal production practices

• In addition to price effects, important to 

consider the degree to which potential 

consumers value sustainable production 

practices.

• How much are consumers willing to pay for 

such practices?
Growth in organic sales
Retail prices for organic eggs and milk

Source: Dimitri and Oberholtzer 2009
Who is more likely to purchase organic 

food?

• Most studies find education level is positively related to purchases 

of organic products

• Evidence regarding other factors is mixed:

Households with younger children

– More likely to purchase (Loureiro et al. 2001)

– Less likely to purchase (Zepeda and Li 2007)

– Not a significant factor (Durham 2007)

Ethnicity

– Asian and Hispanic families more likely (Hartman 2006)

– Asian and Hispanic less likely (Dittmann and Dimitri 2010)

Income

– Positively related (Govindasamy and Italia 1990)

– Not a significant factor (Durham)

• Willingness to pay is difficult to assess 
Wealthy countries spend smaller portion of their 

household budgets on food

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Per capita food expenditure

Food as share of total 

household expenditures
Projected Meat Consumption

Region Per Capita Consumption of Meat

2000 2050

(kg/person/year)

Central and West Asia;

North Africa

20 33

East and South Asia and 

the Pacific

28 51

Latin America and the 

Caribbean

58 77

North America and Europe 83 89

Sub-Saharan Africa 11 22

Source: Rosegrant and Thornton, 2008.
Annual growth rates in meat and dairy 

consumption in developing countries

1999/01-2030 2030-2050

Beef 2.2 1.3

Pork 1.7 0.6

Poultry 3.4 1.8

Dairy 2.5 1.3

Source: FAO 2006
Meat trade

Source: FAO 2006
Projected dairy imports

mmt

2030 2050

Sub-Saharan Africa 3.8 4.3

Near East/North Africa 10.2 13.6

Latin America/Caribbean 4.6 2.2

South Asia 2.2 4.6

East Asia 11.9 14.1

Total developing countries 32.7 38.8

Source: FAO 2006
Summary comments

• Increased production costs due to adoption of more sustainable animal 

production practices will likely raise consumer prices.

• Due to inelastic nature of consumer demand for animal products, price 

increases would result in increased food expenditures for these items.

• Because food expenditures for animal products consumed at home are 

proportionately higher for low income population, the effects of price 

increases will be felt more for this segment.

• Consumer demand for sustainable practices is a small but growing 

segment of market. Willingness of consumers to pay additional costs for 

such practices is less well understood, particularly how preferences may 

be related to income and other factors.

• Developing countries are forecast to consume more meat and dairy 

products, much of which is forecast to come from developed countries 

such as the US. Effects of sustainable production practices on world food 

availability will ultimately depend on the costs
861

Are farmers and rural communities destined to be second-class 

citizens?

Paul Lasley

Iowa State University
Are farmers and rural 

communities destined to 

be second class citizens?

Paul Lasley

Iowa State University

plasley@iastate.edu
Some Disclaimers:

1. I was raised on a general family farm in 

Missouri, not large enough to make a 

full-time living, and too big for a hobby.

2. I did not choose the title of this 

presentation.

3. I interpret “second class citizens” as 

being poor or marginalized. 
Explanations for being poor

 Don’t work hard enough

 Failure to invest in themselves

 Uneducated

 Lazy 

 Changing consumer preferences that 

affect prices 
Other possible explanations

 Structurally disadvantaged by market 

conditions

– Can’t get large enough to achieve economies 

of scale

– Can’t effectively compete against larger firms

 Market shift or changes

– Finding oneself producing things that are no 

longer demanded
AGRI CULTURE

 Is it agriculture or agri culture

 The challenges of the food system are 

both technical and social in origin. 

 The technical solution can not be 

adequately applied until there is 

consensus on the social issues. 
Agriculture vs. Culture

Old paradigm

Agriculture and rural life were closely 

integrated. Most people who lived in rural 

America were associated with farming or 

agriculture. Bound together by common 

experiences, similar values and beliefs, 

shared culture, understanding and 

appreciation for raising crops and livestock
U.S. Urban and Rural Population

Percent of Total Population

1790-1990

0

20

40

60

80

100

179018001810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990

Urban % Rural %
Agriculture vs. Culture

 New Paradigm 

The majority of people living in rural America 

no longer are dependent upon farming for a 

living. They live in rural America for a variety 

of reasons, but not because they farm nor 

want to farm. Reasons for living in the 

country...open spaces, privacy, out doors 

experiences, quality of life. Guests of the 

country.
The Changing Culture of Agriculture

 Emergence of new set of values, beliefs 

and attitudes about agriculture and how 

food should be produced

 Changing paradigm of food production

– Cultural change

 New set of values about animals, their care, etc

 Crops-fossil fuel, ethics between food and fuel, 

natural resource protection, etc
Emergence of New Food System

 More attention to place of origin

– Where their food comes from

 Reconnecting producers and consumers

– Food with a face, CSAs, farmers markets

– Local food system

– Green movement

 Understanding the modern food 

production and processing system

– Knowledge is power.







Even though the structure has changed the 

primary function of agriculture has not changed

 Produce food

 Produce feed for animals

 Produce fuel 

 Produce fiber

These functions are accomplished by:

GROWING PLANTS and RAISING LIVESTOCK
In this changing marketplace and 

culture, it is important that we 

better communicate and connect 

with consumers, explain what we 

do, and equally important, why.
Growing up on a farm

 It was intuitive that livestock would 

eventually be sold and slaughtered

 But husbandry was instilled early in life

– Caring for livestock was a daily ritual that had 

to be done on time, every day, and most 

importantly done right

– The chores often had be done before we ate

– I was an animal husbandry major...maybe we 

need to re-emphasis husbandry
Anthropomorphism 

The attribution of human characteristics to 

characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, 

phenomena, material states and objects or abstract 

concepts, including animals and plants and forces of 

nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as 

creatures with human motivation able to reason and 

converse. 

John Tenniel's depiction of this 

anthropomorphic rabbit was 

featured in the first chapter of 

Lewis Carroll's Alice's 

Adventures in Wonderland
Human responsibilities for animal welfare

Most people agree about humane treatment of animals

 Farm animals

 Companion animals

 Wildlife 

 Zoos

 Research animals
Animal Welfare: Happiness?

 How to measure

 Judgments about what animals desire

 Judgments about feelings, pain, 

intelligence, and sociability 
Brambell Report, 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire 

into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems

Five Freedoms

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst

2. Freedom from Discomfort

3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease

4. Freedom to Express Normal Behavior

5. Freedom from Fear and Distress 
Has husbandry declined?

 The number of animals needed to be an 

efficient farm makes it difficult to give 

individual attention to every animal

– Our dairy cows had Christian names

– So did our dogs and most of the cats

– Hogs didn’t have names

– Our horses had names

– We felt that chickens, turkeys, and other fowl 

didn’t deserve names 
Elements of husbandry

 Feeding, watering, tending to their 

physical needs

 Attending to birthing, providing warmth 

and comfort

 Caring for animals was more than a good 

business practice, it was a moral act.

 Orphan animals—pet pigs, lambs, etc
Is Farm Size related to level of Husbandry?

 It is disingenuous to argue that the number of 

animals is correlated with animal care. 

 I have witnessed poor animal husbandry in small 

herds on small farms, and likewise I have seen 

high levels of husbandry on very large farms. 

 Size is not nearly as important as the intention, 

values and compassion of the operator. 
Animal Abuse 

 Hot button issue

– Puppy mills

– Circuses

– Zoos

– On Farms

– Hoarding animals

– Euthanasia
American spend billions of dollars on 

companion animals

 Business Week in 2007 reported that American 

spent $41 billion on pets and this is expected to 

rise to $52 billion in 2009

 Some people object to how pets are treated—

declawing, tail docking, cropping of ears, 

kenneling, 

 Others raise ethical issues about this wasteful 

spending when others go hungry
What are consumers being told

 It is true? 

– Is it widespread?

– How many cases are needed to make the 

case of being a industry vs. business 

problem? 

 It is balanced story?

– Do industry standards exist?

– Is there inspections and enforcement
Are farmers and rural communities 

destined to be second class citizens?

 Without livestock the answer is most 

certainly yes. There are large portions of 

the US that are unsuitable for continuous 

tillage, and grass-based, livestock foraging 

is ecological and environmentally sound

 Without livestock, these regions will 

experience accelerated outmigration, 

unemployment and stagnation. 
Re-connecting with Animals

 Diverse range of opinions, values and beliefs 

about human responsibilities and duties towards 

animals

– Confusion between livestock, wildlife, companion 

animals, laboratory animals, zoos, 

 Over 200 national and international groups and 

organizations that speak on the issue of animal 

care and welfare 
2001-2010 The Decade of the Animal

October 18, 2009 Chronicle of Higher Education

1. The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a 

Kinder Society, de Waal

2. Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of 

Unselfish Behavior, Sober and Wilson

3. The Mermaid’s Tale: Four Billion years of 

Cooperation in the Making of Living Things, 

Weiss and Buchanan 
The Human-Animal Agenda

 Knowledge of the interdependency and 

interaction between animals and people

 Understanding of options and alternatives 

to humane care for animals—raising the 

husbandry standard

 Code of ethics on animal care
 I am concerned that we have lost sight of the 

end result

 What are the common elements of the 

agricultural vision that we can agree upon

– A well fed populace

– A stable and reliable food system

– Respects the integrity of all living things, both plants 

and animals

 We need to dial down the rhetoric and 

demonstrate respect for each other by 

increasing dialogue and less blaming. 


899

NOTES