Ariana A. Rivera

ENGL 11000

Prof. Elizabeth Von Uhl

April 14, 2020

                                             The Correlation Between Factory Farming and Climate Change

Over the last decade or so climate change has become a “buzzword” in the media, appearing in news articles, social media posts, reports, etc. So much so that it seems as if much of the world has become desensitized to what climate change is and how it will affect us as a species over time. In its simplest definition, climate change is the increase in the Earth’s average temperature largely due to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect itself is when there is an increased amount of carbon dioxide and other harmful gases in the air. These gases trap the heat that is produced by the sun, and in turn, cause the Earth’s temperature to increase over time. So how does this directly affect us? Well, as the Earth’s temperature begins to increase so does the risk of other harmful factors that will negatively affect the human race. Due to the increase in temperature of the Earth, we are more at risk for stronger and more intense hurricanes. The sea levels will also continue to rise and we will be more susceptible to droughts and heatwaves. Humans are responsible for the harmful gases that are released into the atmosphere, and this is especially true for farmers who practice animal agriculture, which is why one of the main contributors to climate change is the practice of factory-farming.

Factory-farming is the practice of raising livestock using intensive methods in order to maximize the amount of meat that is produced. Animals (such as pigs, chickens, and cows) raised by farmers who practice factory-farming are often confined indoors and are strictly controlled on a day to day basis. At its core, the practice of factory-farming is used to not only maximize production but also do so for a lesser cost. The need for such a large number of animals to be slaughtered comes with an increasing demand for meat from the growing population. People who consume meat regularly feel that they are not directly affected by the poor conditions animals face when subject to factory-farming and therefore have a hard time understanding why it is such a huge issue both for both the animals and the environment. However, what they fail to realize is that as long as factory-farming exists the environment will continue to suffer which in fact will harm them in the long run. Factory-farming increases the number of greenhouse gases that are produced and is not sustainable enough to provide the population with meat since, if the temperature continues to rise it will become harder to provide cows, pigs, and chicken with the natural resources they need to survive. Factory farming contributes to the increase in the Earth’s temperature annually because factories require a large amount of energy to run properly resulting in the farmers’ usage of greenhouse gases such as methane and CO2 which trap heat in the atmosphere.

The rhetorical situation of the model essay, “Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming” this essay will be based on is to show that there are alternatives to factory-farming that both benefit humans and animals. Although there is no way to completely stop the production of meat there are more humane farming practices where the animals involved live good lives up until their deaths. The author of the essay Evelyn B. Pluhar, who is a professor of philosophy at Pennsylvania State University, wanted to portray to the reader how there are ethical alternatives to factory-farming and that by adopting these alternatives or even becoming vegetarian you are not only benefitting the animals but also your own health. The audience of this essay is both people who are meat consumers and also possibly farmers who she wishes to educate on better farming practices that are more eco-friendly and ethical. Her tone throughout the essay is informative and professional as she aims to emphasize her main points and explain just why this practice of farming is bad for the environment, the animals, and people’s health. The purpose of the essay is to both persuade meat consumers to possibly adopt a vegetarian diet and farmers to implement more ethical/eco-friendly farming techniques into their farms and to inform people of the negative effects meat that is produced by factory-farming have on their health. The genre of this essay is an academic journal and the medium is the CCNY database. Pluhar’s stance is that factory-farming is both unethical and a danger to the health of people. Pluhar feels that the best way to produce meat and to preserve people’s health is to implement the practice of in vitro farming, which is when meat is produced using animal cells, or adopting a vegetarian diet. The language like the tone is informative and persuasive as Pluhar aims to counter any beliefs that factory-farming is the only efficient way to produce meat while also informing the reader of alternatives she feels are superior to factory-farming based on her extensive research. 

Factory-Farming as long since been proven to have a negative effect on the environment, particularly in regard to how it contributes to the ever-present issue of climate change.  Georgina Gustin states that “Globally, meat consumption has increased over the past 40 years, particularly in developing countries as incomes have risen, according to the FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States]. The letter points to data indicating that factory farms have served this increased demand, especially for poultry and swine–but it says this surge in production has come at a cost to health and the environment.” (Gustin n. pag.) As the population continues to increase annually so does the need for an increase in the rate at which meat is produced. Factory-farming ensures that meat is produced quickly and in bulk for as little of a cost as possible, but is also responsible for “1.9 percent of U.S. emissions” while the transportation of meat is responsible for “25 percent of our emissions”. Gustin further explains that in addition to the negative effect factory-farming has on climate change, it is also not very beneficial to our health by stating that “Studies have shown that a rise in use of antibiotics that are medically important to humans is contributing to antimicrobial [an agent that kills microorganisms and stops them from growing] resistance, which can render antibiotics useless even against relatively minor illnesses.” (Gustin n. pag.). Overall, though the main issue of factory-farming is its contribution to the rise of climate change, the poor treatment of the animals that are involved which often includes feeding them hormones, and an excessive amount of antibiotics also is an important issue in and of itself because of how it affects the health of meat consumers.

Morally we are at fault when condoning the practice of factory-farming in our communities and as a worldwide practice. Nancy M. Williams explores the idea that “Many people want to believe that farm animals live a life full of the natural pleasures of animal existence without the hardships and constant struggle of living in the wild” (4). Meat consumers tend to excuse the unethical practice of rearing livestock and eventually slaughtering them in their belief that if the animals were set free they would live lives full of hardships. However, in reality, animals that are raised in factory-farms live terrible lives in containment and are treated as no more than objects that can be exploited for profit. Williams then explains that “The vast majority of farm animals are reared on factory farms, also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or intensive livestock operations (ILOs), and not the peaceful, idyllic family farms most people think of.” (4.) Animals are not raised on factory farms to be freed from the hardships of living in the wild, but rather so that large corporations can maximize profit by keeping the animals in terrible conditions, giving them the bare minimum of essentials they need to survive, and eventually slaughtering them so that they can be sold for low prices.

As previously stated, one of the most harmful effects factory-farming has is how it impacts the environment and contributes to the increase in the Earth’s temperature annually. The Humane Society of the United States further emphasizes this claim by stating “Factory-farmed animals are typically fed high-energy crops such as corn, which is dependent on large amounts of chemical fertilizer. The FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States] estimates that the production of fertilizer for feed crops may emit 41 million tonnes of CO2 per year globally.” (1).  Since animals who are raised on factory farms are fed in excess so that when they are slaughtered they can produce an optimal amount of meat they are dependent on crops like corn which are grown using chemical fertilizer. The production of chemical fertilizer is responsible for the emission of millions of tons of carbon dioxide which in turn traps heat in the atmosphere resulting in an increase in the Earth’s temperature. The Humane Society of the United States further expands on this claim by stating that the “Intensive confinement operations [when cows, pigs, and chickens are confined to cramped pens with very little space to move freely], require vast amounts of fossil fuel-based energy to cool, heat, and ventilate the facilities, and energy is also used to operate farm machinery to cultivate and harvest feed crops, resulting in at least 90 million tonnes of CO2 annually worldwide.” (1). Due to the large number of animals that are confined in factory-farms and the amount of fuel that these factory-farms need to properly operate, large amounts of CO2 and methane are released into the atmosphere.

Though factory-farming is very widespread and as a result, it appears to be almost impossible to convince major corporations to end this practice there are ways to protest the existence of factory-farms. Ronnie Cummins describes one of the ways to do so when he states “Consumers can boycott food products from factory farms and choose the more environmentally-friendly alternatives. But first, we have to regain the right to know what’s in our food. And that means mandatory labeling, not only of genetically engineered foods but of the 95 percent of non-organic, non-grass-fed meat, dairy, and eggs that are produced on the hellish factory farms that today dominate U.S. food production.” (Cummins n. pag.)  By choosing to buy food that is produced in a more eco-friendly way we are not only benefitting the environment but our own health. In addition, in order to ensure that we can make the right decisions and be educated about where our food is coming from he suggests that all food should be labeled, especially if they are non-organic so consumers know what exactly is in what they are eating when purchasing certain food items. The organization of Compassion in World Farming takes this claim a step further by stating that “Factory farming wastes resources. By taking action against factory farming, we are not just creating a food and farming revolution; we are also saving vital resources, which can be put to better use elsewhere.”  (3) Though people should take a stand against factory farming because of how it negatively affects us and the environment they should also do so seeing that as a practice it is not sustainable enough to provide the growing population with the meat it requires.

One alternative that has been proven to provide us with a healthier, more ethical, and most importantly more eco-friendly way of producing meat is through the process of making in vitro meat. Pluhar introduces this idea when she states “In April 2008, the In Vitro Meat Consortium held its first international conference in Norway (Revkin 2008). The conference reflects the significant progress that has been made in the production of laboratory-cultured meat. The technique calls for a single stem cell to mature and divide in a nutrient-rich soup, eventually resulting in billions of cells fused into a solid slab of meat.” (9). Since its discovery in vitro meat has proven that if it is properly developed and scientists continue to work towards perfecting the process it can be used as a way to sustainably produce meat without emitting an excessive amount of CO2 into the environment. In addition to its environmental benefits, in vitro meat will also ensure that consumers are not exposed to antibiotics or any of the hormones that animals are fed when raised in factory-farms. Pluhar continues to elaborate on this claim when she states  “Cultured meat would also have a big health advantage compared to organically grown livestock: the heart-threatening Omega 6 fatty acids existing in high levels in most consumed livestock could be replaced with beneficial Omega 3 fatty acids (Sandhana 2006).” (10).  Therefore, by implementing the process of creating in vitro meat in farms we can both lessen the toll factory-farming has on the environment and ensure that what we consume is beneficial to our health.

For those who are willing to give up eating meat altogether a healthier alternative to purchasing meat that is produced in factory-farms is adopting a vegetarian diet. Pluhar demonstrates this idea when she states “The healthfulness of a well-balanced vegetarian (including vegan) regime is likewise acknowledged by mainstream nutritional research (ADA Reports 2003). Eating pesticide- and herbicide-treated produce, including produce genetically modified to be resistant to such agents, is not risk-free, but at least the toxins are not exponentially concentrated in flesh featured on the dining table” (6). Though consuming any sort of product comes with its own risks by excluding meat from your diet altogether you are avoiding consuming anything that definitely contains hormones and antibiotics that will harm your health. Vegetarians who are well-balanced get all of the nutrients they need without consuming any meat or harmful toxins. Pluhar goes on to then explain that “It may well be the case that more extensive education about the effects of factory farming on animals raised for food, on human health, and upon the environment would push the number of vegetarians significantly upward.” (7) If more meat consumers were educated on the negative effects factory farming has on them and the world around them there would be more of a push for implementing a vegetarian diet, which would lessen the support for the practice. Hence why people need to be educated on the topic of factory-farming and climate change as a whole so that they can make better decisions on what they choose to consume.

Some may say that the act of raising animals in factory farms is not inherently cruel and therefore should not be questioned. Timothy Hsiao expresses this idea when he states “an act is cruel if it reveals a corrupt character or if it corrupts one’s character so as to make one more disposed to mistreating humans” (49). Understandably, there is a widespread belief that an act is only unethical if it pertains to harming humans and that the people who participate in slaughtering and treating the animals raised in factory-farms poorly are simply carrying out a job. However, just the fact that people are willing to carry out all of those cruel actions shows poor morals and therefore a corrupt character. Stephen Puryear, Stijn Bruers, and Lazlo Erdos analyze this idea by stating “Simply put, to cause a sentient being to suffer unnecessarily, that is, without sufficient moral justification, reflects a corrupt character.” (2).  The fact that there are more humane alternatives to factory farming that at the very least ensure the animals get to live good lives before they are slaughtered yet businesses still choose to promote this practice shows corruption in character and a severe lack of morals. For this reason, factory-farming should be questioned as a practice because of its moral implications and its poor treatment of the animals involved.

Factory farming contributes to the increase in the Earth’s temperature annually because factories require a large amount of energy to run properly resulting in the farmer’s usage of greenhouse gases such as methane and CO2 which then trap heat in the atmosphere. Factory farming is both an environmental hazard and morally unethical. If factory farming continues no matter what lengths to which the government may go to reduce the number of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere annually it will never be enough to make any drastic changes to the environment. The biggest reason for factory farming’s existence as a widespread practice in the first place is because it is seen as the best way to mass-produce meat for a low cost, however, in the future, it will not be sustainable enough to meet the increasing demand from a growing population. There are more humane ways to treat animals before they are slaughtered and there are more eco-friendly ways to produce meat. Overall, because animals who are raised on factory farms suffer immensely and the practice itself is detrimental for the environment farmers should end this practice altogether and adopt more ethical and eco-friendly methods of raising animals for slaughter.

 

Works Cited

Cummins, Ronnie. “How Factory Farming Contributes to Global Warming.” EcoWatch, EcoWatch, 27 June 2016, www.ecowatch.com/how-factory-farming-contributes-to-global-warming-1881690535.html.

“Environmental Damage.” Compassion in World Farming, www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/environmental-damage/.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Animal Agriculture. The Humane Society Of The United States, 30 July 2008, www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/archive/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-sheet-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-animal-agriculture.pdf.

Gustin, Georgina. “Factory Farms Put Climate at Risk, Experts Say in Urging Health Officials to Speak Out; In a letter, 200 experts called on the next director-general of the World Health Organization to confront the role factory farming plays in climate change.” InsideClimate News, 23 May 2017. Gale General OneFile, https://link-gale-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A499378355/ITOF?u=cuny_ccny&sid=ITOF&xid=9b14e02a.

Pluhar, Evelyn B. Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming. Springer Science Business Media, 30 Nov. 2009, https://link-springer-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/content/pdf/10.1007/s10806-009-9226-x.pdf

Puryear, S., Bruers, S. & Erdős, L. On a Failed Defense of Factory Farming. J Agric Environ Ethics 30, 311–323 (2017). https://doi-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.1007/s10806-017-9666-7

Williams, Nancy M. Affected Ignorance and Animal Suffering: Why Our Failure To Debate Factory Farming Puts Us At Moral Risk. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 8 Jan. 2008, link-springer-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/content/pdf/10.1007/s10806-008-9087-8.pdf.