Six arguments low

Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

Six Arguments for a Greener Diet
How a More Plant-Based Diet Could Save
Your Health and the Environment

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Copyright © 2006 by Center for Science in the Public Interest

First Printing, July 2006

2 4 6 8 10 9 7 5 3 1

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), founded in 1971, is a nonprofit
organization that conducts innovative education, research, and advocacy programs
in the area of nutrition, food safety, environment, and alcoholic beverages. CSPI
is supported by the 900,000 subscribers in the United States and Canada to its
Nutrition Action Healthletter and by foundation grants.

Center for Science in the Public Interest
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, #300
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: 202-332-9110; fax: 202-265-4954
Email: cspi@cspinet.org; Internet: www.cspinet.org

ISBN 0-89329-049-1

Visit CSPI’s Eating Green web site: www.EatingGreen.org.

The Web of Animal-Based
Foods and Problems

Natural gas,
ores
Fertilizer Pesticides

Air, soil
& water
Risks to
pollution
farmers &
wildlife

Irrigation
water
Ground-
water
depletion Antibiotics,
hormones
Animal
feed
Soil
erosion

Health &
ecological
risks

Global
Animal warming
cruelty
(methane)

Meat,
Manure dairy,
eggs

Soil Air Water Food Cancer Heart
pollution pollution pollution poisoning disease

Eating Green: By the Numbers
(All figures apply to the United States, except where noted, and are approximate. See text for sources.)

Health
3 years: how much longer vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists live than non-
vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists

4.9 servings: the servings of fruits and vegetables consumed daily, compared to
the recommended 5 to 10

16 percent: the decreased mortality from heart disease associated with eating
one additional serving of fruits or vegetables each day

24 percent: how much lower the rate of fatal heart attacks is in vegetarians com-
pared to non-vegetarians

25 percent: the proportion of food-poisoning deaths due to pathogens from ani-
mals or their manure

33 percent: the decrease in beef consumption since 1976

50 percent: how much less dietary fiber Americans consume than is recommended

51 percent: the reduction in risk of heart attack for people eating nuts five or
more times per week compared to less than once a week

90 percent: the proportion of chickens contaminated with Campylobacter bacteria

100 percent: how much fattier meat is from a typical steer that’s fed grain rather
than grass

199 pounds: the combined amount of meat, poultry, and seafood produced per
American (2003)

1,100: the mortalities due each year to foodborne illnesses linked to meat, poul-
try, dairy, and egg products

46,000: the number of illnesses due annually to antibiotic-resistant strains of Sal-
monella and Campylobacter

63,000: the number of deaths from coronary heart disease caused annually by the
fat and cholesterol in meat, dairy, poultry, and eggs

$7 billion: the annual medical and related costs of foodborne illnesses

$37 billion: the annual cost of drugs to treat high blood pressure, heart disease,
and diabetes

$50 billion: the annual cost of coronary bypass operations and angioplasties

Environment
1 pound: the amount of fertilizer needed to produce 3 pounds of cooked beef

5 times as much: the irrigation water used to grow feed grains compared to fruits
and vegetables

5 tons: the soil lost annually to erosion on an average acre of cropland

7 pounds: the amount of corn needed to add 1 pound of weight to feedlot cattle
(some of that weight gain is not edible meat)

19 percent: the proportion of all methane, a greenhouse gas, emitted by cattle
and other livestock

41 percent: the share of irrigated land planted in livestock feed crops

66 percent: the proportion of grain that ends up as livestock feed at home or
abroad

331: the number of odor-causing chemicals in hog manure

4,500 gallons: the rain and irrigation water needed to produce a quarter-pound
of raw beef

8,500 square miles: the size of the “dead zone” created in the Gulf of Mexico by
fertilizer runoff carried by the Mississippi from the upper Midwest

33 million: the number of cars needed to produce the same level of global warm-
ing as is caused by the methane gas emitted by livestock and their manure

22 billion pounds: the amount of fertilizer used annually to grow feed grains for
American livestock

3.3 trillion pounds: the amount of livestock manure produced annually

17 trillion gallons: the amount of irrigation water used annually to produce feed
for U.S. livestock

Animal Welfare
0.5 square feet: the amount of space allotted to the average layer hen

30: the number of chickens and turkeys consumed annually by the average
American

13,200: the number of chickens killed each hour in a modern slaughterhouse

50,000: the number of broiler chickens in the largest growing sheds

140 million: the number of cattle, pigs, and sheep slaughtered each year

Contents

Acknowledgments  iii
Abbreviations  v
Preface: Greener Diets for a Healthier World  vii

The Context
The Fatted Steer  3

The Arguments
#1. Less Chronic Disease and Better Overall Health  17
#2. Less Foodborne Illness  59
#3. Better Soil  73
#4. More and Cleaner Water  87
#5. Cleaner Air  103
#6. Less Animal Suffering  113

Making Change
Changing Your Own Diet  143
Changing Government Policies  151

ii • Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

Appendixes and Notes
Appendix A. A Bestiary of Foodborne Pathogens  171
Appendix B. Eating Green Internet Resources  177
Notes  181

Photo Credits  223
Index  225

Acknowledgments

T
his book is a publication of the Center for Science in the Public Inter-
est’s (CSPI’s) Eating Green project, which advocates a more plant-
based diet to protect both health and the environment. Asher Wolf
drafted the chapters on foodborne illness, soil, water, air, and animal wel-
fare; Reed Mangels wrote the chapter on chronic disease; and Michael F.
Jacobson wrote several other chapters and edited the entire manuscript.
Michael Kisielewski contributed valuable editing and research; Moira
Donahue, Judy Jacobs, Phyllis Machta, Tyler Martz, Jonathan Morgan, and
Carol Touhey helped with proofreading and fact checking. Nita Congress
provided invaluable advice while she edited and designed the book. CSPI’s
Debra Brink designed the cover and several graphic displays.
Numerous experts in government, academe, and nonprofit organiza-
tions generously provided data, advice, and reviews of entire chapters.
Those people include Tamar Barlam, Aaron Blair, Navis Bermudez, Law-
rence Cahoon, Winston Craig, Karen Florini, Tom Gegax, Noel Gollehon,
Michael Greger, Robert Hadad, Ed Hopkins, Dennis Keeney, Ronald Lace-
well, Alice Lichtenstein, Robbin Marks, Roy Moore, Mark Muller, Frensch
Niegermeier, David Pimentel, Nancy Rabalais, Darryl Ray, Steven Roach,
Bernard Rollin, Gail Rose, Joe Rudek, Daniel Rule, Frank Sacks, Jennifer
Sass, Paul Shapiro, Parke Wilde, and George Wuerthner. In addition, CSPI

iii

iv • Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

staffers Caroline Smith DeWaal, Bonnie Liebman, and David Schardt
reviewed chapters and offered much useful advice. Notwithstanding all
that assistance, this book might still contain factual errors and inappropri-
ate characterizations, for which the editor, Michael F. Jacobson, deserves
the dubious credit. Finally, we are grateful to John Robbins for writing his
ground-breaking Diet for a New America, which helped inspire our work.
CSPI extends its sincere gratitude to the Freed Foundation, Tom and
Mary Gegax, the Shared Earth Foundation, Lucy Waletzky, and the Wallace
Genetic Foundation for their generous support of the Eating Green project
and the preparation of this book.

Abbreviations

AMR advanced meat recovery
BMI body mass index
BSE bovine spongiform encephalopathy
CAFO concentrated animal feeding operation
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CHIP Coronary Health Improvement Project
CLA conjugated linoleic acid
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CSPI Center for Science in the Public Interest
DASH Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension
DHA docosahexaenoic acid
EDC endocrine-disrupting compound
EPA eicosapentaenoic acid
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPIC European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program
EWG Environmental Working Group
FDA Food and Drug Administration
HCA heterocyclic amine
HDL high-density lipoprotein

vi • Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

LDL low-density lipoprotein
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PBDE polybrominated diphenyl ether
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
ppm parts per million
rBST recombinant bovine somatotropin
SDA Seventh-day Adventist
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
vCJD variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
VOC volatile organic compound
WIC Women, Infants, and Children

Preface:
Greener Diets for a Healthier World

A
mericans eat what might be called an all-consuming diet. Together,
we represent over 40 billion pounds of protoplasm that each day
needs to be fed over 1 billion pounds and 1 trillion calories of food.
Our agricultural system consumes enormous quantities of fuel, fertilizers,
and pesticides to produce the grains, meat and poultry, and fruits and vege-
tables that feed a nation of 300 million people. It consumes enormous tracts
of land and quantities of water—not only for growing food for people, but
also for producing food for livestock. And ultimately it consumes the con-
sumer: Diet-related
diseases account for
hundreds of thou-
sands of premature
deaths each year.
Six Arguments for a
Greener Diet analyzes
the multitudinous and
far-reaching effects of
livestock production
and consumption. On
the health front, most

vii

viii • Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

consumers probably know that the saturated fat and cholesterol in fatty
beef and dairy products and eggs promote heart disease. Fewer people are
aware that beef has been linked to colon cancer and milk to prostate cancer.
Adding to the toll are the toxic chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), that animals tend to accumulate in their muscle fat and milk. In all,
animal foods may be responsible for 50,000 to 100,000 premature deaths
each year. (Not surprisingly, vegetarians tend to be healthier than the rest
of us.)
While heart disease and cancer generally take decades to develop,
meat, poultry, and eggs are major causes of food poisoning, which shows
up quickly. Over 1,000 people die each year from livestock-related food-
borne illnesses caused by bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli. In fact,
many foodborne illnesses traced to fruits and vegetables actually are due to
animal manure that gets onto crops. Some foodborne germs are especially
harmful because they defy the usual antibiotic treatment. Such antibiotic
resistance results, in part, from the feeding of small amounts of antibiotics
to cattle, hogs, and poultry to fatten the animals faster or compensate for the
dirty, crowded conditions in which they live.
Consuming large quantities of animal products has inevitable envi-
ronmental consequences. Beef cattle typically live out their last several
months in huge, densely populated feedlots. The 50,000 cattle that reside in
a large feedlot at a given time produce as much manure as a city of several
million people. Not surprisingly, they create a stench that undermines the
quality of life for everyone who lives or works nearby. Even grazing can be
problematic. In some parts of the West, cattle graze on ecologically sensitive
land, which can destroy normal vegetation. Industrial-scale hog production
relies on pond-sized cesspools (euphemistically called lagoons by agribusi-
ness) of manure. Stench aside, cesspools sometimes break open and pollute
local streams and rivers.
A high percentage of the grains and hay grown on our nation’s farms
feeds animals, not humans. Producing the vast quantities of corn, soybean
meal, alfalfa, and other ingredients of livestock feed consumes vast quanti-
ties of natural resources and requires thousands of square miles of land.
Much of the Midwest’s grasslands and forests have been replaced by grain
farms. In the arid West and Great Plains, large amounts of irrigation water,
which might otherwise be used as drinking water or in more productive
commercial enterprises, are needed to produce feed grains. Although shift-
ing to grass-fed beef would solve some of the environmental problems,
as well as provide leaner meat, one serious problem would remain: Cattle
naturally emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Preface: Greener Diets for a Healthier World • ix

The chemical fertilizers that farmers use to help maximize grain pro-
duction take a great deal of energy to produce, and they pollute waterways
and drinking water. Because of all the fertilizer that washes down the
Mississippi River, the Gulf of Mexico has a poorly oxygenated “dead zone”
the size of New Jersey. Using chemical pesticides to protect crops from
insects and other pests frequently results in those chemicals contaminat-
ing drinking water in rural areas, as well as endangering farmworkers and
wildlife. The small amounts that we consume when we eat both plant and
animal foods are unwelcome, if not demonstrably harmful.


Among the questions this book seeks to answer are “What is the cost to the
environment of raising so many food animals?” and “What is the cost to our
bodies of eating them?” We also ask “What is the cost to the animals?” If
an animal is treated well, can exhibit its natural behaviors, and has a quick
and painless death, then killing and eating it is easier to justify. However,
most food animals are not so lucky. Hogs’ tails and chickens’ beaks are par-
tially cut off. Egg-laying hens are squeezed into small cages. Broiler chick-
ens spend their entire short lives in sheds crammed with tens of thousands
of birds, never getting a glimpse of the outdoors or pecking for insects in
the ground. Steers are often branded with hot irons, and bulls are castrated

• Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

without sedatives. Animal welfare activists have documented egregious
examples of mistreatment of animals prior to slaughter, with chickens
being smashed against walls and cattle having their throats slit and being
hung by their legs without first being rendered unconscious.

In this era of global warming, researchers have cited the overall energy
and pollution costs of different diets as an important reason to eat less
meat. University of Chicago geophysicists Gidon Eshel and Pamela Mar-
tin calculate that it takes about 500 calories of fossil-fuel energy inputs to
produce 100 calories’ worth of chicken or milk; producing 100 calories’
worth of grain-fed beef requires almost 1,600 calories. But producing 100
calories’ worth of plant foods requires only 50 calories from fossil fuels.
In terms of global warming, eating a typical American diet instead of an
all-plant diet has a greater impact than driving a Toyota Camry instead of
a gas-frugal Toyota Prius.1 And that difference translates into an annual
430 million tons of carbon dioxide, 6 percent of the nation’s total emis-
sions of greenhouse gases.
Nutrition researchers in Germany have examined the ecological impacts
of three kinds of diets: typical Western, low meat, and lacto-ovo vegetarian.2
Compared to a typical diet, a low-meat diet uses 41 percent less energy and
generates 37 percent less carbon dioxide equivalents (greenhouse gases)
and 50 percent less sulfur dioxide equivalents (respiratory problems, acid

Greenhouse Gases
Global warming is occurring because increased amounts of carbon dioxide and
other gases in the atmosphere trap extra heat and gradually warm our planet.
While automobiles and fossil-fuel power plants are the biggest contributors to
global warming, agriculture also plays a role.

 Livestock (mostly cattle) plus the manure lagoons on factory farms (mostly hog)
generate an amount of methane that promotes about as much global warming
as the release of carbon dioxide from 33 million automobiles. Methane is 23
times as potent as an equal amount of carbon dioxide.
 Nitrous oxide—which comes from degradation of manure and from fertilizer
applied to cropland—is 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide in promoting
global warming and accounts for 6 percent of the greenhouse effect in the
lower atmosphere.
 Manufacturing fertilizer generates both carbon dioxide and nitrogen-containing
greenhouse gases.

Preface: Greener Diets for a Healthier World • xi

rain). For a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, the savings are even greater: 54 per-
cent less energy, 52 percent less carbon dioxide equivalents, and 66 percent
less sulfur dioxide equivalents.
Eating less meat and dairy products could greatly improve health,
the environment, and animal welfare—especially if people replaced some
of those foods with vegetables, beans, fruits, nuts, and whole grains (see
“Changing Your Own Diet,” p. 143). Most minimally processed plant foods
are low in saturated fat and cholesterol and high in vitamins, minerals, and
dietary fiber, and they are the only source of diverse phytonutrients. While
producing more grains, vegetables, and fruits would require land, water,
pesticides, and fertilizers, the amounts used would be small compared to
the amounts saved by producing less animal-based foods. Even without
cutting back on beef and dairy foods, just shifting the cattle industry away
from feedlots and toward leaner grass-fed beef and getting the dairy indus-
try to cut the saturated-fat content of milk would yield big dividends.
This pro-plant message, however, has one important caveat: Animal
products do not have a monopoly on causing harm. Diets rich in salt, par-
tially hydrogenated vegetable oils (with their trans fat), refined sugars, and
refined flour also cause major health problems—heart disease, strokes, obe-

Different gases have stronger or weaker effects on pollution. It is customary to convert
them into equivalents of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide so their effects may be compared
or combined.

xii • Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

sity, and tooth decay, to name
a few. And certain crops—such
as sugar cane in Florida and,
indeed, almost any row crop
grown in monoculture on
large farms—wreak serious
environmental damage.
While moving in a more
vegetarian direction offers
many benefits to health and
the environment, a more
omnivorous option is advo-
cated eloquently by University
of California journalism professor Michael Pollan in his recent book, The
Omnivore’s Dilemma. Pollan describes the multiple virtues of small farms
that humanely and ecologically raise cattle, pigs, and chickens on pastures
and in woodlands and sell their meat, milk, and eggs locally.3 There’s little
room for factory farms, Wal-Marts, or Burger Kings in that vision, though
the consumption of animal products could be at unhealthy levels. A more (or
totally) plant-based diet could be as compatible with sustainable agriculture
as diets that include animal products, but comparing the two approaches
is a good reminder that no path is perfect: Each has its own compromises
related to taste, cost, convenience, cultural values, health, ecology, animal
welfare, and the vitality of rural America. Ultimately, what you eat is your
choice.
Despite the well-recognized benefits of diets higher in healthy plant-
based foods and lower in animal products (especially those produced on
factory farms), relatively few people will change their diets (and few farm-
ers will change their growing practices) without encouragement from new
government policies. Six Arguments, therefore, suggests a range of policy
options and programs (see “Changing Government Policies,” p. 151). Some
of our proposals would directly promote a healthier, more environmentally
sound diet. Others might reduce consumption by increasing the price of
animal products. And some would improve the lives of farm animals.

That’s what Six Arguments for a Greener Diet is about. Now a few words about
what it is not about. Six Arguments focuses on the United States, though the
same logic applies to every other nation. The United States and other indus-
trialized nations have largely passed through the “nutrition transition,”
meaning that diets that were once based largely on starchy grains and pota-

Preface: Greener Diets for a Healthier World • xiii

toes now include much greater amounts of meat. Hundreds of millions of
people in India, China, Indonesia, and other developing nations are follow-
ing our footsteps toward the meat counter. As Lester Brown, president of
the Earth Policy Institute and a long-time analyst of global agriculture poli-
cies, has noted, the animal-rich American diet requires the production of
four times as much grain per person as the average Indian diet.4 If the entire
world’s population were to eat as much meat as Westerners, two-thirds more
land would be needed than is currently farmed.5 The increased demand
for water, fertilizer, and pesticides and the concomitant increased pollution
would be unsustainable and ultimately devastating to our planet.
Six Arguments for a Greener Diet puts the health, environmental, and
animal welfare consequences of raising and eating livestock under the
microscope, but does not delve into the whys and wherefores of the situ-
ation. Why are so many animals allowed to be raised in miserable condi-
tions? Why are restaurants permitted to market fatty hamburgers and other
unhealthy foods to young children? Why are livestock operations that raise
thousands or tens of thousands of chickens, pigs, and cattle allowed to pollute
waterways and the atmosphere with tons of smelly, drug-tainted manure
and global-warming pollutants? Why are huge soybean and grain farms
allowed to use such large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides that the run-
off pollutes rivers, lakes, and even oceans? Why do farmers who grow crops
to feed livestock receive billions of dollars in annual subsidies, hundreds

xiv • Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

of times as much as fruit and
vegetable growers receive? Why
does the federal government not
shape its farm and health policies
around its sensible Dietary Guide-
lines for Americans and the vitality
of rural communities?
It’s questions like those that
activate dozens of agribusiness,
food industry, environmental,
health, and consumer groups
at the local, state, and national
levels. The answers to the “why”
questions are matters of politics,
not science, and typically revolve
around money and livelihoods.
The makers of pesticides, fertil-
izer, and animal drugs; the cattle,
hog, poultry, and dairy indus-
tries; the large grain companies
and grain farmers—they all defend the status quo. They pour millions
of dollars each year into campaign contributions, lobbyists’ salaries, and
advertising campaigns. They wine and dine politicians—often over fatty
steaks—and use hardball tactics to rein in any rare elected official who dares
stray from the proper path. (Senators will long remember how, in 1980, the
cattle industry successfully campaigned to defeat South Dakota senator
George McGovern because he dared recommend that people eat less beef.)
And, by making use of the “revolving door,” top officials from the cattle,
pork, dairy, and other food- and agriculture-related industries become top
officials in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and many former legislators
and Department of Agriculture officials enjoy more lucrative, and no less
influential, careers on Washington’s K Street, where they lobby for those
industries.
Getting the “why” questions answered in a way that protects humans,
animals, and the environment will require the involvement of thousands of
concerned citizens, nonprofit organizations, concerned farmers and com-
panies, legislators, and government officials at the local, state, and national
levels. Considering how important these matters are, now is the time to
start. Meanwhile, each of us can quietly do our part—in our kitchens, gro-
cery stores, farmers’ markets, and backyard gardens.

The Fatted Steer

G
rain-fed beef. Since the 1950s, that term has conjured up thoughts of
tender, juicy, delicious meat. Grain-fed beef is advertised by super-
markets and featured by restaurants. Omaha Steaks, a national
retail and mail order company, pro-
claims: “We select the finest grain-fed  Grain-fed beef is rich in saturated
beef for superior marbling, flavor and fat and cholesterol, which promote
tenderness.” Morton’s, the high-end heart disease.
steakhouse chain, “serves only the  Growing corn and other crops for cat-
finest USDA prime-aged, Midwest tle feed requires enormous amounts
grain-fed beef.” And the latest epicu- of fertilizer, water, pesticides, land,
rean delicacy, Kobe beef—advertised and fossil fuel.

as the “most flavorful and tender  Feedlot cattle eat a grain-rich diet
beef on the Planet”—is fed grain (and that can cause digestive, hoof, and
often beer). The implication is that
1 liver diseases and necessitates the
continuous feeding of antibiotics.
beef from cattle that were not grain-
fed is tough, tasteless, and simply not  Grass-fed cattle are less harmful to
the environment and provide leaner
worth eating.
beef, but still generate air pollution.
In truth, grain-fed beef, which
Any kind of beef increases the risk of
accounts for some 85 percent of colon cancer.
American beef, epitomizes much of


what is wrong with both the American “factory” approach to livestock
production and the American diet. They eat a diet that sickens them. They
generate air and water pollution. They pack on fattier meat. And, to top it
off, grain-fed beef doesn’t necessarily taste better than grass-fed beef.
A sensible argument for raising cattle and other ruminants is that their
manure fertilizes grasslands, and they can convert into meat or milk the
nutrient- and fiber-rich plant matter—grasses, cornstalks, and the like—that
humans cannot digest. Raising cattle that way, though not without prob-
lems of its own, expands the food supply. However, in the United States,
that rationale for including beef in the diet is undercut by the fact that the
great majority of beef cattle spend months in feedlots eating grain, getting
fat, and generating pollution.

The Objective: Cheap and Tender Beef
Restaurateur and former professional football player Dave Shula’s “Views
on Great Beef” include the note that “A great steak is all about flavorful, juicy
and tender beef.”2 And an animal physiologist with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), discussing why he studies cattle proteins and genes,
explains that “Tenderness is the most important trait to consumers.”3
The cattle industry certainly wants to satisfy consumers’ desires—and
maximize its profits. Fortunately for the industry, techniques that produce
tasty meat also turn out to be the cheapest way to raise cattle. The high-
energy diets dished out at feedlots speed the animals’ growth, with much of
the increased weight taking the form of fat. Much like a restaurant that tries
to “turn” its tables as quickly as possible, the faster growth rate gets the cattle
to market sooner. So with both gastronomic and financial motives in place,
cattle producers have adopted practices that yield a very fatted steer indeed.

Choosing to Produce Lean or Fatty Beef
For thousands of years, farmers have employed such factors as breeding and
feed to shape the nature and yield of the meat (or milk or pork or chicken). In
recent decades, scientists and agribusiness firms have turned the art of meat
production into a science, with careful research supplanting happenstance.
Unfortunately, the practices that lead to the fastest production and
cheapest prices are not what’s best for the consumer’s health.

They Are What Their Parents Are
Breed is a major determinant of cattle’s fat content. Angus, Hereford, and
crosses with other breeds are the most popular breeds in the United States,
not least because they are among the fattiest. They have the largest amounts

The Fatted Steer •

Quality and Yield: Understanding USDA Meat Grades
Because fat content is important to beef purchasers, the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture has established a complex grading system that gives high grades to beef
that is well-marbled with intramuscular fat.4 About 80 percent of all beef cattle
and cows are graded by visual inspection at the slaughterhouse. The fattiest meat
(8 percent marbling or higher) rates as Prime, the next fattiest (5 to 7 percent
marbling) as Choice, and the leanest meat (3 to 4 percent marbling) as Select.
In recent years, about 40 percent of cattle were graded as Select, 60 percent as
Choice, and 2 to 3 percent as Prime.5 Restaurants and supermarkets pay a pre-
mium for that fatty Prime meat. Producers also receive a premium for such special
USDA grading programs as “Certified Angus Beef” or “Certified Hereford Beef,”
which are breeds that yield mostly high-Choice beef (see figure 1).6

“External” fat—that is, fat outside of the edible beef used as steaks—is reflected
in USDA’s “yield grades.” The lower the grade on a scale of 1 to 5, the less fat.7 Of
meat that is graded, 85 percent is USDA yield grade 2 or 3. Although some producers
argue that the quantity of external fat is unimportant because most of it is trimmed
from beef cuts, much of that fat eventually ends up back in the food supply when it
is blended with lean ground beef or used as shortening in baked goods.8

An even leaner grade of beef, Standard, represents only 0.3 percent of all meat
that is graded.

of external fat and the highest marbling scores, and they provide the high-
est percentages of Choice meat (see figure 1). The Limousin and Chianina
breeds are far leaner. In Italy, in fact, the Chianina breed is prized for its
lean meat. In the United States, it is often crossbred with other cattle—such
as the Hereford—to increase marbling in the Chianina or decrease back fat
in the Hereford.

They Are What They Eat
What cattle are fed greatly influences how fatty their meat will be. In a study
at Ontario’s University of Guelph, Ira Mandell and his colleagues let Limou-
sin calves graze for eight months.9 The cattle were then fed either grain or
mostly alfalfa hay for seven months (see table 1). The average carcass weight
of the grain-fed steers was 45 pounds more than that of the hay-fed steers,
reflecting faster growth on a high-energy diet. The layer of back fat over the
longissimus muscle (the main muscle in rib and strip loin cuts) was twice as
thick in the grain-fed steers. And meat from the grain-fed steers contained
almost twice as much intramuscular fat. The hay-fed steers, on the other
hand, produced more lean meat than their grain-fed counterparts.


Figure 1. Percentage of fattier meat in selected cattle breeds10

USDA Choice (% of meat)
80

70

60

50

40

Hereford-Angus
30
Maine Anjou

Simmental

Shorthorn
20 Charolais
Limousin

Gelbvieh
Chianina

Salers

10

0
Breed
Notes: All carcass weights were about 700 pounds.

While some breeds are inherently higher in fat, they will be leaner if
they graze on pasture. In a study conducted at North Carolina State Uni-
versity, Angus steers were kept on pasture or fed corn until they weighed
about 1,200 pounds (see table 2).11 The grass-fed steers took about 1½ months
longer to reach that weight, and their meat contained much less fat marbling
than that from the grain-fed steers: Grass-fed beef was on the lean side of
USDA Select, while grain-fed beef was on the high side of USDA Choice.
Although the average carcass weight of the grass-fed steers was 75 pounds
less than that of the grain-fed steers, the area of their longissimus muscle
was almost as large as that of the grain-fed steers—a sign that grass-fed
cattle can yield almost as much edible meat as grain-fed cattle. Moreover,

Table 1. Carcass traits of Limousin steers fed grain or hay for 209 days12
Carcass trait Grain-fed steers Grass-fed steers
Carcass weight 720 lb 674 lb
Total fat 27% 19%
Intramuscular fat 4.0% 2.7%
Back fat over longissimus muscle at slaughter 0.4 in 0.2 in
Lean meat 395 lb 409 lb


Table 2. Carcass traits of Angus steers fed grain or grass and slaughtered at
similar weights13
Carcass trait Grain-fed steers Grass-fed steers
Days on diet 91 133
Weight at beginning of experiment 896 lb 909 lb
Slaughter weight 1,260 lb 1,190 lb
Carcass weight 750 lb 675 lb
Marbling score* 6.2 4.5
USDA quality grade† 17.5 15
USDA yield grade ‡
3 2.2
Longissimus muscle area 13.1 sq in 11.9 sq in
* Scoring system designed by researchers to match USDA’s scoring system: 4 = slight degree of
marbling; 5 = small; 6 = modest; 7 = high.
†
Scoring system designed by researchers to match USDA’s scoring system: 16 = Select; 17 = Choice;
18 = High Choice.
‡
Yield grade is measured on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 containing the highest amount of waste fat.

the lower yield grade indicates that the grass-fed beef had less low-value
external fat.
An animal’s diet can override the effect of breed. Feeding grain to a
leaner breed of cattle over longer periods can result in meat that is as fatty
as that produced by a fattier breed. The University of Guelph researchers
compared the Red Angus breed with the leaner Simmental.14 Both groups
of animals were finished with a high-grain diet and slaughtered when they
reached the same back-fat thickness (about 0.4 inches, determined by ultra-
sound). The Simmental took about 2½ months longer than the Red Angus
to reach the same amount of back fat and, thus, spent substantially more
time on feed grains. The Simmental outweighed the Red Angus at slaugh-
ter by 45 pounds, and, despite its “lean” reputation, had a slightly higher
marbling score and total (external and internal) fat content. So, just because
meat comes from a normally lean breed does not automatically mean that
the meat is lean.

Younger Is Leaner
The age at which cattle are slaughtered strongly affects fat content. In a
study led by Susan Duckett at the Oklahoma State University Meat Lab-
oratory, grain-fed Hereford-Angus cattle were slaughtered after 28-day
intervals on high-energy diets.15 After periods longer than 84 days, cattle
progressively accumulated wasteful, external fat without increases in the
palatability (taste, juiciness, and tenderness) of their meat. Between 84 and


112 days on feed grains, the cattle experienced the largest increase in exter-
nal fat and marbling. During that period, the content of intramuscular fat
more than doubled, moving the meat from USDA Select to Choice. Those
results suggest that limiting grain feeding to 84 days—many cattle are on
feed for up to 190 days—could provide much more healthful meat.

Fatty Meat Clogs Arteries…
Fattening cattle on grain is the quickest way to get them to market, but the
higher fat content of feedlot beef is life threatening. Beef is a major source of
saturated fat and cholesterol, which increase levels of the harmful kind of
cholesterol in our blood. That clogs arteries and increases the risk of heart
attacks, the nation’s number-one cause of death. While consumers can eas-
ily cut away the outside fat on steaks, they can’t remove the fat that marbles
steaks or the fat in hamburgers and meatloaf.
Grass-fed beef is usually lower in fat and less conducive to heart dis-
ease.16 But, as we will discover in the next chapter, any kind of beef—espe-
cially processed meats such as sausages—promotes colon cancer.

…And Doesn’t Necessarily Taste Better
Americans have been trained to salivate at the mention of grain-fed beef.
“This creates well-marbled, tender, flavorful steaks. Marbling is the easiest
way to spot a high quality steak,” says Iowa Corn Fed, a mail-order com-
pany that charges as much as $35 a pound for a steak.17 One study found
that pasture-raised beef sometimes has a “grassy” off-flavor. A Univer-
sity of Nebraska study found that half the taste testers preferred corn-fed
beef, but the other half either preferred Argentinian grass-fed beef or were
undecided.18
Taste experts agree that corn-fed beef tastes different from grass-fed
beef, but not necessarily better. Corby Kummer, food editor for the Atlan-
tic Monthly, says “Grass-fed beef tastes better than corn-fed beef: meatier,
purer, far less fatty, the way we imagine beef tasted before feedlots and
farm subsidies changed ranchers and cattle.”19 Careful, moist cooking, such
as using marinades, helps reduce any stringiness.
Many studies dispute Kummer, presumably because taste is subjec-
tive and tasters bring with them their expectations of what tastes good.20
But some of the studies make a case for grass-fed beef. Mandell and his
colleagues at the University of Guelph compared meat from the popular
Hereford breed and the leaner Simmental breed. Cattle of each breed were
fed mostly grass or mostly grain. A trained taste panel judged meat from
both breeds—whether they ate grain or grass—to be equally palatable.21


Another study—spon-
sored in part by the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association—
found that among top loin, top
sirloin, and top round steaks,
consumers showed barely
any preference for the fattier
Choice grade over Select.22
The study, conducted by Texas
AM University researchers,
found that the more often
consumers purchased leaner
meat, the less able they were
to distinguish among quality
grades. They concluded that
the “USDA quality grade may
be limited” in indicating the
taste of a steak. Taste is more
culturally determined than
genetically determined. It’s no
surprise, then, that people prefer the kinds of beef they grew up with: fatty
grain-fed in the United States and lean grass-fed in Argentina (the biggest
beef-consuming country in the world). But we suspect that many more con-
sumers would enjoy grass-fed beef if they both tasted it and were told of its
health and environmental advantages.
Although beef production is geared to delivering fattier Choice or
Prime meat, some health-conscious consumers are seeking leaner meat.
Some companies, such as Laura’s Lean Beef, pay ranchers a premium for
cattle that yield leaner Select grade beef. Other ranchers, such as Maver-
ick Ranch and Coleman, market grass-fed or organic beef, which is often
leaner than regular beef, and are getting a premium for it. For example,
Hawthorne Valley Farms, which boasts several hundred acres of lush pas-
tureland, charges up to $20 per pound for grass-fed tenderloin steaks at
local farmers’ markets.23 In response to this growing consumer demand,
even the Cattlemen’s Beef Board sometimes highlights the low fat content
of certain steaks.24

Raising Cattle Harms the Environment…
Raising tens of millions of cattle not only provides meat that promotes
heart disease and sometimes causes food poisoning (see Arguments #1

10 • Six Arguments for a Greener Diet

Grass-Fed Beef: Better, but Not a Health Food
Grass-fed beef is typically leaner than feedlot beef, a major advantage; and graz-
ing on pasture spares the need for about 5,000 pounds of grain per animal. Beyond
that, some advocates maintain
that grass-fed beef is rich in two
special kinds of fat—conjugated
linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3
fatty acids—that confer health
benefits. One purveyor, Ameri-
can Grass Fed Beef, emphasizes
that its “grass fed beef is high
in heart friendly essential fatty
acids.”25 As yet, however, the evidence for such benefits is scanty, and even lean
beef modestly increases the risk of heart disease and promotes colon cancer.

Conjugated Linoleic Acid
In the early 1980s, scientists suggested that CLA in beef might help fight obesity
and prevent cancer. However, studies over the past two decades generally have
been unsuccessful in linking the consumption of grass-fed beef to those “near-
magical” (as one skeptical scientist stated) results.

 Weight gain. Michael Pariza—the University of Wisconsin scientist who first iden-
tified CLA in beef and heralded its possible benefits—found that CLA reduces
weight gain in laboratory mice, with possibly smaller benefits in other lab ani-
mals.26 However, Pariza notes that the fat mostly reduces future weight gain, not
the initial weight. An industry-sponsored study suggests that CLA might lower the
percentage of body fat, but not weight.27 An added complexity is that meat and
dairy products contain one form of CLA, while dietary supplements contain an
additional form. Only the form in supplements affects weight in animals.
The bottom line is that human studies have not shown a benefit,28 and some
research indicates that supplements may increase the risk of diabetes, heart
disease, and other problems.29 In 2002, the Institute of Medicine, a part of the

and #2), but also wreaks environmental havoc, as detailed in Arguments #3,
#4, and #5. A mid-sized feedlot with 10,000 cattle churns out half a million
pounds of manure each day—equivalent to a city such as Washington, D.C.,
with 500,000 residents. That mountain of fragrant manure pollutes the air
and sometimes pollutes streams and rivers, killing plants and animals. The
methane that cattle and their manure produce has a global-warming effect
equal to that of 33 million automobiles.

The Fatted Steer • 11

National Academy of Sciences, stated that “research on the effects of CLA on
body composition in humans has provided conflicting results” and declined to
set a recommended intake level.30 Overweight individuals should run—but not to
grocery stores for grass-fed beef or drug stores for supplements.

 Cancer. When female rats predisposed to mammary (breast) tumors were fed a
diet containing 0.5 percent to 1 percent CLA, existing tumors grew more slowly
or stopped growing, and fewer new tumors developed. Also, the tumors did not
spread to other organs.31 In 1989, USA Today opined that beef “aids [the] war on
cancer” and could “be made into a drug” if CLA proved beneficial to humans.32
But the Institute of Medicine threw cold water on that notion, too, saying that
“to date, there are insufficient data in humans to recommend a level of CLA
at which beneficial health effects may occur.”33 Even if beef’s CLA turns out to
protect against cancer, grass-fed beef’s lower fat content—its real health advan-
tage—would reduce the benefits from the higher content of CLA in its fat.34

Overall, the evidence that CLA offers health benefits is skimpy. And if CLA ever were
proven to offer benefits, doctors certainly would prescribe pills, not burgers.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Some people claim that grass-fed beef is especially healthful because it contains
about five times as much omega-3 fatty acids as grain-fed beef.35 Those are the same
fatty acids—eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)—that are
found in fish oil and appear to prevent heart attacks and possibly strokes.36 Beef also
contains small amounts of alpha-linolenic acid, some of which the body can convert
to EPA and DHA.37 But the amounts of all of those fatty acids are small.

The American Heart Association recommends that people without heart disease
eat fish twice a week, as well as flaxseed, canola, and soybean oils. People with
heart disease should consume about 1 gram of EPA and DHA per day.38 To get
that amount from grass-fed beef would mean eating about 5 to 10 pounds of rib
steaks.39 Clearly, fish and dietary supplements are better sources: Three ounces
of bluefin tuna provide 1.5 grams of the fatty acids; 3 ounces of Atlantic salmon
provide 1.9 grams.40

Feeding grain to cattle makes a bad situation worse. It takes about
7 pounds of corn to put on 1 pound of weight. That’s why over 200 million
acres of land are devoted to producing grains, oilseeds, pasture, and hay for
livestock.41 Moreover, cultivation of those crops requires 181 million pounds
of pesticides, 22 billion pounds of fertilizer, and 17 trillion gallons of irriga-
tion water per year. The fertilizer and pesticides pollute the air, water, and
soil, while irrigation depletes natural aquifers built up over millennia.


Grazing’s Pluses and Minuses
Grazing is better in many ways than feeding grain to cattle, but it still exacts
environmental costs. Cattle that eat grass and roughage release more methane (a
gas that causes global warming and is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide)
than cattle on a high-energy feedlot diet, because grass-fed cattle take about
10 to 20 percent longer to reach market weight.42 Those longer lives also mean
more manure—about 3,500 to 5,000 pounds per animal (60 pounds per day). That
manure, though, is dispersed widely on pastureland, enriching the soil and nour-
ishing the growth of plant life.43

…And the Cattle, Too
One measure of our humanity is how well we treat animals. While pets,
of course, are often pampered almost like children, livestock are another
story. Aside from sometimes being branded with a burning hot iron and,
in the case of males, castrated without the benefit of sedation or painkill-
ers, beef cattle have a pretty good life for their first year or so, living on the
range. But then virtually all cattle are shipped in crowded trucks—exposed
to the elements and banged about—to feedlots, where they dwell for up to
six months in manure-befouled pens and eat a high-energy corn-based diet
that sometimes causes liver, hoof, and gastrointestinal illnesses and occa-
sionally even fatal bloating. (Shipping the animals to the feed is cheaper
than hauling the feed to them. Indeed, in the case of chickens, corn and soy-
bean meal account for 60 percent of the cost of production.44)
When they’ve reached market weight, feedlot cattle (along with small
numbers of pasture-raised cattle) are shipped for the final time to a slaugh-
terhouse where they have a small, but real, risk of a slow, painful death.
From that point on, the cattle exact a sort of posthumous revenge: First to
suffer are the workers in slaughterhouses and meat processing plants who
experience everything from repetitive movement injuries to knife wounds.
Next are the unwitting consumers, who may suffer foodborne illness in the
short term or fatal heart attacks in the long term.

What It All Means
Raising cattle provides valuable nutrients, leather, and by-products used by
the food and drug and other industries. But considering how most cattle
are raised, those positives are outweighed by a host of negatives. To protect
our own health and our country’s environment, the best thing we could
do would be to eat less, leaner, or no beef. Should that happen on a large
enough scale, vast areas of cropland could be freed up, allowing the land to

The Fatted Steer • 13

regain much of its original fertility and biodiversity or to be planted in more
healthful fruit and vegetable crops or crops that would provide biofuel.
But as long as people do eat beef, raising cattle on pastureland—instead
of feeding them grain—would dramatically reduce the fat content of beef,
the waste and pollution of water and the fouling of air caused by manure
and agricultural chemicals, and the misery experienced by the cattle con-
signed to feedlots.

Argument #1.
Less Chronic Disease and Better
Overall Health

Our Diet Is Killing Us
At least one of every six deaths in the United States—upwards of 340,000
each year—is linked to a poor diet and sedentary lifestyle.1 The average
American is about as likely to die
from a disease related to diet and  The saturated fat and cholesterol in
physical inactivity as from smoking beef, pork, dairy foods, poultry, and
tobacco—and far likelier to die from eggs cause about 63,000 fatal heart
diet and inactivity than from an auto- attacks annually.
mobile accident, homicide, or infec-  Less than a quarter of all adults eat
tious disease such as pneumonia.2 the recommended number of daily
Among nonsmokers, the combina- servings of fruits and vegetables—
tion of diet and physical inactivity is foods that reduce the risk of heart
disease and cancer.
the single largest cause of death.
The specific diet-related diseases  Vegetarians enjoy lower levels of
blood cholesterol, less obesity,
that fell so many of us include heart
less hypertension, and fewer other
disease, certain cancers, stroke, and
problems than people whose diet
diabetes. Those and other chronic dis- includes meat.
eases (so called because they develop

17


and progress over many years) are caused in part by diets too poor in
healthy plant-based foods and too rich in unhealthy animal-based foods.

We Eat Too Much of What’s Bad for Us…
Obesity, which is directly linked to
diet and a sedentary lifestyle, mark-
edly increases a person’s risk of heart
disease, hypertension (high blood
pressure), diabetes, and some cancers.
Rates of obesity have doubled in chil-
dren and adults and tripled in teen-
agers since the late 1970s, which is not
surprising, since—thanks to ubiqui-
tous high-calorie foods—the average adult eats 100 to 500 calories more per
day and—thanks to modern conveniences—exercises less.3 The additional
calories have come mainly from the least healthy foods: white flour, added
fats and oils, and refined sugars.4
Moreover, Americans are eating more flesh foods—beef, pork, chicken,
turkey, and seafood. In 2003, for instance, Americans ate more of each of
those foods than they did a half-century earlier (see figure 1 and table 1).
Fortunately, the biggest increase was for poultry, which is not directly linked
to chronic disease. However, a lot of that chicken—and fish too—is not
baked or grilled, but deep fried in partially hydrogenated oil. That oil con-
tains trans fat, one of the most potent
Figure 1. Major sources of animal causes of heart disease. Meanwhile,
protein produced in the United Americans cut their consumption of
States5 beef by 33 percent since 1976; that is
likely due both to health concerns
Eggs and lower chicken prices.
1.4
billion Pork Our inconsistent efforts to eat
Poultry 2.3 healthy diets extend to non-meat
5.8 billion foods as well. Although we are eat-
billion
ing one-third fewer eggs—the yolks
Beef
3.3 of which are our biggest source of
billion cholesterol and thus contribute to
Milk
5.6 heart disease—than we did in 1953,
billion we are eating four times as much
cheese—which is high in saturated
fat and promotes heart disease (see
18.4 billion pounds per year
table 1).

Argument #1. Less Chronic Disease and Better Overall Health • 19

Table 1. Per capita availability of major sources of meat, poultry, and seafood;
dairy foods; and eggs6

al
ve

sh sh
sh

yo ilk
n

se
y
ke

lfi

rt
ke

ee
el
Fi

gu
ef

k
r

ic

gs
M
a

r
r

Ch

Ch
Be

Tu
Po
Ye

Eg
1909 56 41 10 1 10* 34 4 293
1953 61 39 15 4 11 37 7 379
1976 92 41 29 7 13 30 16 270
2003 62 49 58 14 16 23 31 253
Notes: Figures for meat, poultry, and seafood represent the numbers of trimmed (edible) pounds
per capita that were available in the food supply; the remaining figures represent the per capita
numbers of gallons (milk and yogurt), pounds (cheese), or eggs that were available in the food
supply. Due to waste and spoilage, actual consumption is lower. Beef consumption peaked in 1976.
*Figure is for 1929, the first year for which data are available.

Looking at other non-animal-derived portions of our diet, we are con-
suming massive amounts of nutritionally poor plant-based foods, notably:
 refined grains (white bread, white pasta, and white rice), which are
stripped of much of their nutrients and dietary fiber;
 soft drinks and other foods high in refined sugars (including high-
fructose corn syrup), which replace more healthful foods and promote
obesity; and
 baked goods and fried foods made with partially hydrogenated vege-
table oil and palm, palm kernel, and coconut oils, which promote heart
disease.
Finally, there’s salt. The large amounts of salt in most packaged and restau-
rant foods and processed meats increase blood pressure, which increases
the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

…And Not Enough Whole Grains,
Fruits, and Vegetables
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) estimates that the average adult
eats only one serving of whole grains
daily.7 In contrast, the Dietary Guide-
lines for Americans recommends that
at least half of our 6 to 10 daily grain
servings should be whole grain.8 The


The Cardiovascular Benefit of Eating Less Meat and Dairy
Probably the biggest health benefit from eating less animal products (other than
fish) is a lower risk of heart disease. The Center for Science in the Public Interest
estimated the approximate benefit based on the:

 amounts of different fatty acids and cholesterol that are supplied by various
animal products,
 impact of saturated fat and cholesterol on blood cholesterol levels, and
 relationship between blood cholesterol and heart disease.

We first estimated how our consumption of fats and cholesterol would change if all
the beef, pork, milk and cheese, poultry, and eggs were removed from the average
diet and either not replaced or replaced with foods that did not affect the risk of
heart disease.9 Next, we projected how those changes in fat and cholesterol intake
would affect blood cholesterol levels by averaging the results from formulas devel-
oped by several leading researchers.10 We then assumed that a 1 percent increase
in blood cholesterol—total or low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or “bad” cholesterol)
increases heart disease mortality by 2 percent.11

Those calculations indicate
that avoiding animal fats 5,000 deaths
would save about 63,000 lives
per year (see figure).12 Because Eggs
that estimate is based on inex- Beef 16,000
deaths
act assumptions, the true total
19,000 Dairy
might easily be 25,000 more deaths Poultry 5,000
or fewer lives per year. The deaths
number of lives saved would
be dramatically greater if one Pork
assumed that people replaced
much of the meat and dairy 18,000 deaths
products with healthier plant- The fat and cholesterol in meat, dairy,
based foods or fish. The eco- poultry, and egg products cause about
nomic benefit of avoiding the 63,000 deaths from heart disease each year.
fat would be about $100 billion
a year or in excess of $1 trillion over 20 years.13 On the other hand, the same
methodology indicates that the healthy unsaturated fats in salad oils currently
save about 7,000 lives a year.

Of course, we could reap some of those benefits by switching to lower-fat ani-
mal products—such as from beef to chicken or even buffalo and to low-fat dairy
foods.


The Economic Benefits of a More Plant-Based Diet
Diseases related to a diet too poor in plant foods and too rich in animal foods
contribute to skyrocketing health-care costs. The annual cost of angioplasties and
coronary bypass operations is about $50 billion, with statin heart-disease drugs
adding $15 billion.14 Spending to treat high blood pressure (including $15 billion for
drugs15), stroke, diabetes (another $7 billion for drugs), and cancer add additional
billions.16 And, of course, on top of the medical costs are the incalculable amounts
of pain and suffering (of both the people with the diseases and their friends and
relatives) and lost productivity.

Eating a more plant-based diet wouldn’t eliminate all those costs, but would cer-
tainly move us well along in the right direction. One study estimated that going
vegetarian would save the nation $39 billion to $84 billion annually.17 If obesity—
which is much less common in vegetarians than others—were eliminated, we could
save about $73 billion a year.18

USDA also estimates that we are eating 1.2 servings of fruit and 3.7 serv-
ings of vegetables per day, considerably less than the recommended 5 to 10
daily servings.19 And, disappointingly, potato chips and French fries (which
are often cooked in partially hydrogenated shortening) here count as “veg-
etables.” Indeed, one-third of the vegetables that we eat are iceberg lettuce
and potatoes, two of the least nutritious. We are consuming only one-third
the recommended amount of the most nutritious vegetables: deep yellow
and dark leafy green vegetables, and beans.20
According to the USDA, we’re very slowly increasing our consump-
tion of vegetables: Fresh vegetables are up 33 percent, and total vegetables
are up 25 percent, since 1970. Surprisingly, though, fruit consumption is up
only 12 percent over that period and has not increased at all in 20 years.21
As our diets have been buffeted by cultural, economic, and other fac-
tors, the evidence that certain dietary changes can reduce our risk of chronic
disease has become much stronger. Much of the research shows that people
who eat more plant-based diets, such as those traditionally eaten in Medi-
terranean or Asian countries, are generally healthier than those eating the
typical American, Canadian, or northern European diet.

How Do We Know?
Study after study points to meat and dairy products, especially fatty ones,
as causes of chronic diseases. The harm results both from specific constit-
uents in animal products (such as saturated fat and cholesterol) and from
pushing healthier nutrient-rich plant foods out of the diet. This section


presents the science behind the (by now) commonly accepted premise that
eating too many of the wrong animal products and too few of the healthiest
plant foods does tremendous harm to our health. Again, a common-sense
caveat: Modest amounts of fatty fish and low-fat dairy, meat, and poultry
products—even an occasional hot dog or cheeseburger—certainly can fit
into a healthy diet. The problems arise from immoderation.
One approach to understanding the influence of diet on health is to
compare groups of people who eat very different diets. Such “observational”
studies can provide important insights into what constitutes a health-
promoting diet, though they cannot determine with certainty the particular
elements in the diets—or other aspects of the subjects’ lives—that are
responsible for the better health. We review those studies first, then examine
“intervention” studies, which are better able to identify causes and effects.
Finally, we examine the health effects of specific foods and nutrients.

Observational Studies Show That Vegetarians Live Longer and Are
Less Prone to Chronic Diseases
Studies that compare disease patterns in people with different kinds of
diets help identify factors that cause or prevent diseases. For example, dif-
ferences in disease
rates between veg-
etarians (or vegans,
who abstain from
all animal products,
including dairy and
eggs) and non-vege-
tarians can help iden-
tify the effects of meat
and other animal
products. The weak-
ness of this “observa-
tional” approach is
that factors other than
diet—such as physical
activity, air pollution,
use of legal and illegal
Meatless meals offer an incredible variety of tastes, textures, and drugs, and cigarette
smells. smoking—affect dis-
ease rates as well. Scientists try to account for those kinds of factors, but it is
impossible to know about and account for everything.


Seventh-day Adventists Eat a More Plant-Based Diet and Live Longer and
Healthier Lives
Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs), whose religion advocates abstinence from
meat and poultry as well as alcohol and tobacco, have provided invalu-
able evidence on lifestyle and health.22 About half of American SDAs fol-
low a vegetarian diet or eat meat less than once a week. About one-quarter
of SDAs follow a meatless lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, which includes dairy
products and eggs, and about 3 percent are vegan. Generally, even non-veg-
etarian SDAs eat less meat than does the average American. Vegetarian or
not, SDAs also tend to be physically active and eschew tobacco and alco-
hol. So, by comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian SDAs and adjusting
for factors such as smoking, physical activity, and alcohol, the effects of a
vegetarian diet can be teased out. Vegetarian SDAs may also be compared
to the general population to shed light on the health effects of a lacto-ovo
vegetarian diet.
SDAs, on average, consume less saturated fat and cholesterol and more
dietary fiber than the average American.23 They eat more fruit, green salads,
whole wheat bread, and margarine and less meat, cream, coffee, butter, and
white bread. The same is true of vegetarian SDAs compared to non-vegetar-
ian SDAs.24
Key findings from studies of SDAs include the following:
 Longevity. Vegetarian SDA women live 2.5 years longer than non-
vegetarian SDA women; vegetarian SDA men live 3.2 years longer than
their non-vegetarian counterparts.25
 Heart attacks. Non-vegetarian SDA men have twice the rate of fatal heart
attacks as vegetarian SDA men.26 Similarly, the risk of fatal heart disease
is more than twice as high for men who eat beef more than three times a
week as for vegetarians.27 However, beef consumption or vegetarianism
does not clearly affect the risk of heart disease in women.28
 Stroke. SDAs in the Netherlands have about a 45 percent lower death rate
from strokes than the total Dutch population.29
 Cholesterol. Among African American SDAs, LDL (“bad”) cholesterol and
triglycerides (the most common fat found in blood) were lower in vegans
than in lacto-ovo vegetarians.30 Both of those fatty substances promote
heart attacks.
 Hypertension. Hypertension, which increases the risk of heart attacks
and strokes, is twice as common in non-vegetarian SDAs as in vegetar-
ians; semi-vegetarians (those who eat fish and poultry less than once a
week) had intermediate rates.31 Those findings apply to both men and
women. When hypertension was defined as “taking antihypertensive


medication” (those with more severe hypertension), non-vegetarians
had almost three times the rate of hypertension as vegetarians.32
 Diabetes. Diabetes is twice as common in non-vegetarian SDAs, whether
male or female, as in vegetarians, with semi-vegetarians having an inter-
mediate prevalence.33
 Cancer. Prostate cancer is 54 percent, and colon cancer is 88 percent, more
common in non-vegetarian than in vegetarian SDAs.34
Some of those health benefits may be due not to particular nutrients in
plant foods, but to the fact that bulky plant-based diets help reduce body
weight. For example, for the average 5’10” male SDA, non-vegetarians weigh
an average of 14 pounds more than vegetarians. For 5’4” female SDAs, non-
vegetarians weigh 12 pounds more than vegetarians.35

Vegetarians Have Less Heart Disease, Hypertension, and Diabetes
Studies of non-SDA vegetarians yield similar results. For example, the USDA’s
1994–95 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals asked more than
13,000 people whether they considered themselves to be vegetarian.36 Self-
defined vegetarians whose diets did not include meat made up 0.9 percent
of this nationally representative sample. Compared to non-vegetarians,
the self-defined vegetarians tended to consume less fat, saturated fat, and
cholesterol and more fiber. Self-defined vegetarians also ate more grains,
legumes, vegetables, and fruit. In addition, they consumed fewer calories
and had lower BMIs (body mass index, which combines height and weight)
than non-vegetarians.37
Several large studies in Europe have examined the health of vegetar-
ians. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
(EPIC) is an ongoing study involving over 500,000 people in 10 countries.
The part of that study being conducted in the United Kingdom (EPIC-
Oxford) involves more than 34,000 non-vegetarians and close to 33,000
non-meat-eaters (including people who eat fish, lacto-ovo vegetarians, and
vegans).38 Another British study, the Oxford Vegetarian Study, compared
6,000 vegetarians to 5,000 non-vegetarians.39 (More than half of the non-
vegetarian subjects in that study did not eat meat daily and, therefore, were
not typical of the general British population.) Findings from those studies
and similar ones include the following:
 Cholesterol. Vegans have 28 percent lower LDL cholesterol levels than
meat-eaters. Lacto-ovo vegetarians and fish-eaters have levels between
those of vegans and meat-eaters.40 Based on blood cholesterol levels, the
researchers estimated that heart disease rates would be 24 percent lower


in lifelong vegetarians and 57 percent lower in lifelong vegans than in
meat-eaters.
 Heart disease. Vegetarians have a 28 percent lower death rate from heart
disease than meat-eaters.41
 Blood pressure. Vegetarians have lower blood pressure and a lower rate of
hypertension than non-vegetarians. Vegans have the lowest blood pres-
sure and the least hypertension, followed by vegetarians and fish-eat-
ers; non-vegetarians have the highest rates of hypertension.42 (Differ-
ences in body weight were responsible for about half of the variation in
blood pressure; alcohol consumption and vigorous exercise accounted
for some of the variation in men.43) The EPIC-Oxford study found hyper-
tension rates of 9 percent in lacto-ovo vegetarians and 13 percent in
non-vegetarians.44
 Diabetes. Mortality from diabetes is markedly lower for vegetarians (and
for health-conscious non-vegetarians) than for the general population.45
As with the SDAs, some of the European vegetarians’ health advan-
tages are likely due to lower rates of obesity.46 For instance, in the Oxford
Vegetarian Study, overweight or obesity (BMI 25) was twice as common in
non-vegetarian men, and 1½ times more common in non-vegetarian women,
as in vegetarians.47 In a Swedish study of middle-aged women, the risk of
obesity was 65 percent lower in vegans, 46 percent lower in lacto-vegetar-
ians (those who avoid meat, fish, poultry, and eggs), and 48 percent lower
in semi-vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians.48 On average, vegetar-
ians are leaner than their non-vegetarian counterparts by about 1 BMI unit

Meta-Analysis Find Vegetarians Have Less Heart Disease
Meta-analysis is a powerful statistical technique that combines the results from
a number of similar studies into a single, large analysis. If done properly, such an
analysis can provide more conclusive results than any single study. A meta-analysis
of five studies (the Adventist Mortality Study, Health Food Shoppers Study, Adven-
tist Health Study, Heidelberg Study, and Oxford Vegetarian Study) included a total
of 76,172 vegetarians (both lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegans) and non-vegetarians
with similar lifestyles.49 The vegetarians had a 24 percent lower rate of fatal heart
attacks than non-vegetarians. When compared to people who ate meat at least
weekly, mortality from heart disease was 20 percent lower in occasional meat-
eaters, 34 percent lower in those who ate fish but not meat, 34 percent lower in
lacto-ovo vegetarians, and 26 percent lower in vegans. (The data on vegans may
not be reliable, because the meta-analysis included only 753 vegans.) The meta-
analysis did not find any difference in death rates from stroke or cancer between
the vegetarians and non-vegetarians.


(roughly 6 pounds).50 Differences in rates of obesity and BMI may be due to
vegetarians’ higher intake of fiber and lower intake of animal fat, although
other unknown factors also appear to be involved.51
In sum, several large studies have found that vegetarians enjoy lower
risks of major chronic diseases and longer lives than non-vegetarians. That
is not surprising, considering that vegetarians have lower rates of obesity,
lower saturated fat and cholesterol intakes, higher fiber intakes, and lower
total and LDL cholesterol levels. Vegetarians’ somewhat greater physical
activity also plays a role. Smoking clearly is an important risk factor, but
most recent studies adjust for it, as well as for age, alcohol use, and other
readily identified factors. It is always possible, of course, that vegetarians
may differ from other people in ways not accounted for in the studies.
Though the numbers of vegans in the studies are small, they tend
to have lower serum total and LDL cholesterol, less hypertension, and a
lower prevalence of obesity than lacto-ovo vegetarians. However, there
is no evidence that vegans live longer than lacto-ovo vegetarians and
semi-vegetarians.52

Followers of a “Prudent” Diet Are Less Likely to Have Heart Disease
Other major studies have found important connections between dietary
patterns and heart disease. The ongoing Nurses’ Health Study, which is
managed by the Harvard School of Public Health, compared a “prudent”
diet, with higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fish,
and poultry, to the “Western” pattern, which is high in red and processed
(sausage, bacon, and the like) meats, sweets, desserts, fried foods, and refined
grains. After 12 years, among the more than 69,000 participants, the women
who ate prudent diets were 36 percent less likely to develop heart disease
than those who ate typical Western diets.53 In a similar study of almost 45,000
male health professionals, a prudent diet was associated with about a 30 per-
cent lower risk of developing heart disease or of dying from a heart attack.54

Intervention Studies Demonstrate Benefits of Low-Fat Vegetarian Diets
The bottom line from observational studies is that diets based more on plant
foods—and that means carrots, not carrot cake—pay big health dividends.
But the limitation of those studies is that vegetarians and other health-
conscious individuals might be doing things besides eating more plant
foods and fewer animal products that are the real reasons for their better
health. Intervention studies overcome that limitation.
The best way to study the effect of diet on chronic disease is to assign
participants randomly to two or more different diets. Such “intervention”


studies include those in which subjects were placed on vegetarian or other
kinds of diets, thus allowing researchers to evaluate the diets’ relative
strengths and weaknesses.

Low-Fat Vegetarian Diets Can Lower Blood Pressure and Decrease the
Risk of Heart Disease
Vegetarian diets have proven to be remarkably beneficial for people who
have cardiovascular disease. For instance, switching from ordinary omniv-
orous diets to a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet with similar sodium content but
more fiber, calcium, and potassium reduced the blood pressure in subjects
who had either normal or high blood pressure.55 Differences in the kinds of
fat, as well as the levels of minerals, in the vegetarian and non-vegetarian
diets may have accounted for some of the differences in blood pressure.56
Several recent intervention studies examined the effect of a near-vegan
diet high in phytosterols and soluble fiber on blood cholesterol levels.57
Phytosterols are plant-based substances with a chemical structure related to
cholesterol; they are added to some margarines, yogurts, and orange juice to
reduce cholesterol absorption. The soluble fiber in such foods as oats, barley,
psyllium, eggplant, and okra forms thick, sticky solutions that increase the
excretion from the body of bile acids and lower blood cholesterol levels.
David Jenkins and colleagues at the University of Toronto placed people
with high blood cholesterol levels on either (1) a near-vegan diet high in
phytosterols, soluble fiber, and soy protein; (2) a low-saturated-fat lacto-ovo
vegetarian diet; or (3) the latter diet along with a cholesterol-lowering statin
drug. The diet that included phytosterols, soluble fiber, and soy protein
improved cholesterol levels just as much as the lacto-ovo vegetarian diet
plus the statin. Judging from
the subjects’ changes in cho-
lesterol levels, blood pressure,
and other measures, the near-
vegan diet led to a 32 percent
lower risk of heart disease
than the lacto-ovo vegetarian
diet. The near-vegan diet pre-
sumably had a greater effect
because of the soluble fiber,
phytosterols, and possibly soy
protein (but see “Soy Foods:
No Health Miracle,” on p. 39). Morale-boosting communal dinners likely contribute to the
Jenkins notes, “There is hope success of the CHIP heart-health program (see next page).


that these diets may provide a non-pharmacologic treatment option for
selected individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”58
Based in part on the Toronto studies, the National Cholesterol Educa-
tion Program, a part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, rec-
ommended a combination of statins and dietary modifications for patients
with high LDL cholesterol levels (above 130 milligrams per deciliter).59
Hans Diehl, a health educator at the Lifestyle Medical Institute in
Loma Linda, California, has developed a community-based Coronary
Health Improvement Project (CHIP) that involves hundreds of people at
a time. CHIP encourages participants to switch to a near-vegan, low-fat
diet (though most participants make more modest changes) and engage
in walking or other physical activities.60 After only a few weeks on the

The DASH and Mediterranean Diets
The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) intervention study used a
more plant-based, but not vegetarian, diet. DASH examined the effects of a diet
that includes twice the average daily consumption of fruits, vegetables, and low-
fat dairy products; one-third the usual intake of red meat; half the typical use of
fats, oils, and salad dressings; and one-quarter the typical number of unhealthy
snacks and sweets. It emphasizes whole grains and severely limits salt (see “Chang-
ing Your Own Diet,” p. 143, for more about this diet). Compared to a typical Ameri-
can diet, the DASH diet lowers blood cholesterol, blood pressure, and the risk of
cardiovascular disease.61 A major strength of this study was that the subjects were
given all their meals, so the researchers knew exactly what they were eating.

A prominent French study, the Lyon Diet Heart Study, tested the effect on heart
disease of a Mediterranean-type diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, bread
and other grains, potatoes, beans, nuts, seeds, and olive oil and contains only
modest amounts of animal products. In subjects who had already had a heart
attack, the Mediterranean diet led to 50 to 70 percent fewer deaths, strokes, and
other complications compared to those following a “prudent” Western-type diet.62
Interestingly, blood cholesterol levels and cigarette use were similar in the two
groups, indicating that other factors—possibly the threefold higher level of alpha-
linolenic acid, an omega-3 fatty acid, in the experimental group—play important
health roles. Also, weight loss was not responsible for the dramatic benefit—a
finding unlike those in some other studies. Harvard Medical School professor Alex-
ander Leaf commented that this “well-conducted” study showed that “relatively
simple dietary changes achieved greater reductions in risk of all-cause and coro-
nary heart disease mortality in a secondary prevention trial than any of the cho-
lesterol-lowering [drug] studies to date.”63 He also noted that the subjects readily
adhered to this diet.


program, participants typically eat more fruits and vegetables and less
saturated fat and cholesterol than a control group. In one study, compared
to the controls, the participants’ average LDL cholesterol level declined by
14 percent.64 Subjects who changed their diets also lost an average of 7½
pounds, and their rate of hypertension dropped in half. The CHIP study
shows that a health-promotion program can provide enormous benefits to
large groups of people in a cost-effective way.

Diet and Exercise Can Reverse Heart Disease
Dean Ornish, of the University of California in San Francisco, and his col-
leagues have done ground-breaking studies in patients with moderate to
severe heart disease. The researchers prescribe a very-low-fat vegetarian
diet (containing no animal products except nonfat dairy products and egg
whites), along with moderate aerobic exercise, smoking cessation, and stress
reduction. That regimen significantly
improved cholesterol levels, at least
Fighting Prostate Cancer
temporarily. It also began unclogging
with Lifestyle
arteries and preventing angina (the
chest pain that occurs when the heart Prostate cancer, which kills 30,000
muscle does not get enough blood) American men each year, may be
and heart attacks. Lipid-lowering
65 controlled with lifestyle changes,
statin drugs were not needed. The including a low-fat vegan diet. Dean
Ornish and his colleagues at the Uni-
lifestyle changes were as effective as
versity of California “treated” with
coronary bypass surgery in reducing
diet, fish oil and other supplements,
angina. The subjects who ate the low-
exercise, and other lifestyle changes
fat vegetarian diet and made other
half of a group of 93 volunteers with
lifestyle changes lost an average of early prostate cancer. The other
24 pounds, which was undoubtedly half received the usual care. After
an important factor in their improved one year, prostate-specific anti-
health. gen, one index of prostate cancer,
In another study by Ornish’s decreased 4 percent in the treat-
research group, 440 men and women ment group but increased 6 percent
with coronary artery disease ate in the control group. The cancer
the same largely vegetarian diet progressed sufficiently in six men in
and made the prescribed lifestyle the control group, but in none in the
changes. After one year, the subjects
66 experimental group, to warrant con-
enjoyed reduced blood lipids (13 per- ventional medical therapy.67
cent lower LDL cholesterol in men,
16 percent lower in women), blood pressure (1 to 2 percent reduction in sys-
tolic blood pressure), and weight (5 percent in men, 7 percent in women).


In a smaller but much
longer study, Caldwell
Esselstyn of the Cleve-
land Clinic monitored
18 patients with severe
coronary artery disease.68
Most of them had suf-
fered coronary problems
after a previous bypass
surgery or angioplasty.
Decades of eating fatty meat and dairy products can turn healthy
arteries (like the opened and flattened human aorta at left) into
All of those who ate an
ones afflicted with severe atherosclerosis (right). almost entirely plant-
based diet had no recurrence of coronary events over 12 years (a few patients
took low doses of statin drugs some of the time). One patient who “fell off
the wagon” had a heart attack and then resumed the program. The coronary
arteries of 70 percent of the patients studied became less clogged. In Dr. Es-
selstyn’s words, his patients had become “virtually heart-attack proof.”
One concern about diets high in carbohydrates is that they tend to raise
triglycerides and lower high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or “good” choles-
terol), a prescription for heart disease. However, in China and Japan, where
traditional diets are very high in carbohydrates, heart disease is almost
nonexistent. That’s probably because most Chinese and Japanese people
have been lean and active—very different from the typical American. In
addition, studies by Dean Ornish and David Jenkins of North Americans
are reassuring. They found that diets high in carbohydrates from whole
grains and beans, but low in white flour and sugar, led to major reduc-
tions in LDL cholesterol but had little or no effect on triglycerides and HDL
cholesterol. The fact that Ornish’s subjects were moderately active and lost
weight undoubtedly helped. Ornish speculates that even when high-carbo-
hydrate diets lower HDL cholesterol, that does not increase the risk of heart
disease, while the low HDL cholesterol levels seen in people whose diets
are high in refined sugars and starches do promote heart disease.69

A More Plant-Based Diet Can Treat Type 2 Diabetes
Low-fat vegetarian diets can treat type 2 diabetes, a terrible and increas-
ingly common disease that causes everything from blindness to gangrene
(and amputations) to heart disease. In one 26-day study of 652 people with
diabetes, more than one-third of the insulin-using subjects who adopted a
low-fat vegetarian diet were able to discontinue the insulin. Close to three-
quarters of those on the vegetarian diet who were taking oral hypoglycemic


medicines were able to stop taking them.70 The vegetarian diet also yielded
a 22 percent reduction in serum cholesterol and a 33 percent reduction in
triglycerides. Some of those benefits were likely due to the subjects’ losing
an average of 8 pounds.
A study that combined a low-fat, high-fiber vegan diet with daily
exercise and weight loss (11 pounds in 25 days) was also highly successful
in treating type 2 diabetes.71 The lifestyle changes eliminated the pain
related to diabetes-caused nerve damage in most of the subjects. It also
reduced fasting blood glucose levels, blood pressure, and the need for
medications.
The results of intervention studies strongly indicate that a largely plant-
based diet provides tremendous benefits—sometimes even as great as those
achieved by powerful prescription drugs or surgery. Though some of those
studies also involved relaxation, exercise, or low levels of drugs, diets con-
sisting mostly of nutritious plant-based foods clearly are extremely effective
at preventing or treating chronic diseases. The benefits include reductions
in blood pressure, total and LDL cholesterol, blood glucose, clogging of
arteries, and—most importantly—less cardiovascular disease and type 2
diabetes.
Building on that body of research, leading health agencies in the United
States and abroad have developed quite similar dietary advice (see table 2).
They stress the benefits from beans, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and
seafood, along with physical activity, and the harm that is associated with
fatty meat and dairy products.

What Specific Foods Should
We Be Eating—and Avoiding?
The studies we have discussed com-
pared the health effects of widely dif-
ferent diets. Researchers also have
studied the health benefits and risks of
specific food groups, such as fruits and
vegetables, and meat.

Fruits and Vegetables
Americans are eating slightly more
fruits and vegetables today than the
paltry amounts we ate 35 years ago,
but still far less than the recommended
5 to 10 servings per day. Fruits and


Table 2. Health experts’ advice on diet, physical activity, and chronic disease72
Disease What increases risk What decreases risk
 Saturated fat (especially meat and  Vegetables, fruitsDG, WHO
dairy)DG, WHO  Whole grainsDG, WHO
 Cholesterol (meat, dairy fat, egg  LegumesWHO
yolks)DG, WHO
 Fish, fish oilDG, WHO
 Trans fatDG, WHO
 FiberDG, WHO
 SaltDG, WHO
 Linoleic acidWHO
Heart  Obesity/overweightDG, WHO
 Alpha-linolenic acidWHO
disease  Sedentary lifestyleDG, WHO
 Oleic acidWHO
 Nuts (unsalted)WHO
 Physical activityDG, WHO
 PotassiumWHO
 Plant sterols/stanolsWHO
 FolateWHO
 Obesity/overweight ACS, DG, WHO  Vegetables, fruitsACS, DG, WHO
 Alcohol ACS, DG, WHO
 Increased fluidACS
Cancer*  Meat (fresh and preserved) ACS, WHO
 Physical activityACS, DG, WHO
 Dairy products (high-fat ) † ACS

 Sedentary lifestyleDG
 SaltDG  Vegetables, fruitsDG
Stroke  Obesity/overweight DG
 PotassiumWHO
 Alcohol WHO

 Obesity/overweightDG, WHO  Vegetables, fruitsDG
 Saturated fat (meat, dairy products)WHO  Whole grainsWHO
Type 2
 Sedentary lifestyle DG, WHO
 LegumesWHO
diabetes
 Physical activityDG, WHO
 Dietary fiberWHO
 SaltDG  Vegetables, fruitsWHO
Hyper-  Obesity/overweight DG
 LegumesWHO
tension  Sedentary lifestyle DG
 PotassiumDG
 Alcohol DG
 Physical activityDG
 Sedentary lifestyleDG, WHO  Physical activityDG, WHO
 Empty-calorie foods, such as sugar-  Dietary fiberDG, WHO
Obesity sweetened soft drinks and fruit drinks  Whole grainsDG
(high in calories, low in nutrients)DG, WHO
 Added sugarsDG
Note: Experts are the American Cancer Society (ACS), Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DG), and
the World Health Organization (WHO).
* Varies by site. See table 3, p. 34, for details.
†
See “…But Linked to Heart Disease and Various Cancers,” p. 44, for updated information about
dairy foods and prostate cancer.


vegetables not only are loaded with nutrients, but they also help push less
nutritious foods out of our diets.

Help Fight Heart Disease and Stroke
Several studies have found that both men and women who consume the
most fruits and vegetables have the lowest levels of bad cholesterol and
a reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease—generally 5 to 30 percent
lower than those consuming the smallest amounts.73 Of course, when peo-
ple eat more produce, they inevitably eat less of something else, possibly
meat or another source of saturated fat and cholesterol. Yet fruits and veg-
etables have benefits on their own,
judging from studies that adjusted for
meat intake.74
A Finnish study found that mid-
dle-aged men who ate the most fruits
and vegetables had a 41 percent lower
risk of dying from heart disease than
those who ate the fewest.75 Similarly,
a U.S. study found a 27 percent lower
mortality from cardiovascular disease
in adults eating fruits and vegetables
three or more times daily compared
to those eating them less than once
a day.76 A meta-analysis (see “Meta-Analysis Find Vegetarians Have Less
Heart Disease,” p. 25) of 14 studies found that each increase in fruit and
vegetable intake of about 5 ounces—one generous serving—per day was
associated with a 16 percent lower mortality from cardiovascular disease.77
One way that fruits and vegetables fight cardiovascular disease is by
lowering blood pressure.78 A 15-year-long study of more than 4,000 young
men and women found that people who ate more plant foods, especially
fruit, were less likely to develop elevated blood pressure. In a meta-analysis
that combined seven long-term studies, each additional serving of fruit was
associated with an 11 percent decrease in the risk of stroke. Vegetables had
a similar effect.

Play a Role in Cancer Prevention
Fruits and vegetables appear to play a modest role in cancer prevention.79
Eating more of those foods probably reduces the risk of mouth, esophageal,
and stomach cancers.80 The World Health Organization recommends con-
suming at least 14 ounces (about four servings) per day of fruits and veg-


etables to reduce the risk of cancer.81 The National Cancer Institute’s 5 A
Day for Better Health Program urges people to eat between five and nine
servings of fruits and vegetables a day, depending on sex and age. Experts’
conclusions about the effect of what we eat on various kinds of cancer are
summarized in table 3. In general, fruits, vegetables, and physical activity
are associated with lower risks of certain cancers, while alcohol, a seden-
tary lifestyle, and red meat and dairy foods appear to increase the risk of
certain cancers.

Table 3. Health experts’ advice on diet, physical activity, and cancer82
Cancer site What increases risk What decreases risk
Bladder  Increased fluid intakeACS

 Overweight or obesity in  Physical activityACS
Breast postmenopausal womenACS, WHO
 AlcoholACS, DG, WHO
 Overweight or obesityACS, WHO  Physical activityACS, DG, WHO
 Preserved/processed meat WHO
Colon, rectum
 Red meat ACS
 AlcoholACS
Endometrium  Overweight or obesityACS, WHO  Physical activityACS
 Alcohol ACS, DG, WHO
 Vegetables, fruitsACS, DG, WHO
Esophagus
 Overweight or obesity ACS, WHO

Gall bladder  Overweight or obesityACS

Kidney  Overweight or obesityACS, WHO

Larynx  Alcohol ACS, WHO  Vegetables, fruitsDG
Liver  Alcohol ACS, WHO

 Alcohol ACS, DG, WHO  Vegetables, fruitsACS, DG, WHO
Mouth

Ovary  Vegetables, fruitsACS

Pancreas  Overweight or obesityACS  Vegetables, fruitsACS
Pharynx  Alcohol ACS, WHO
 Vegetables, fruitsDG
 Dairy products (high-fat*)ACS
Prostate  High calcium intake mainly
through supplementsACS
Stomach  Vegetables, fruitsDG, WHO

Notes: Experts are the American Cancer Society (ACS), Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DG), and
the World Health Organization (WHO). Stronger associations are in boldface.
* See “…But Linked to Heart Disease and Various Cancers,” p. 44, for updated information about
dairy foods and prostate cancer.


Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School
of Public Health, sums up the evidence this way:
Advice to eat five servings per day of fruits and vegetables … remains
sound because a modest reduction in cancer risk is likely, and benefits for
cardiovascular disease have become even better established. However, no
one should expect substantial reductions in cancer incidence from eating
more fruits and vegetables without attention to cigarette smoking, weight
control, and regular physical activity.83

Help in Weight Loss
With obesity such a major problem in industrialized, and even many devel-
oping, nations, scientists have tried to identify the foods that contribute to
or prevent weight gain. Intervention studies indicate that substituting fruits
and vegetables for foods with higher-calorie densities—such as fatty meats,
cheese, and candy—can help with weight loss.84 Beth Carlton Tohill, of the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, notes that “Dietary inter-
ventions of low ED [energy-density] diets (low fat and high in fruits and
vegetables) led to spontaneous weight loss.”85
Longer-term observational studies also indicate that eating more
produce can fend off weight gain. Four studies involving more than
100,000 adults in all reported an association between higher fruit and
vegetable intake and lower weight.86 Similarly, a survey of more than
420,000 American adults found that people with a normal weight consume
more fruits and vegetables than people
who are overweight or obese.87 (Some
studies unfortunately count fried pota-
toes and fruit juice, which are high in
calories, along with “real” fruits and
vegetables, obscuring links between
the healthiest fruits and vegetables
and body weight.88)

Boast Other Health Benefits
Some studies suggest that diets high
in fruits and vegetables are associ-
ated with a reduced risk of type 2 dia-
betes and greater bone density.89 The
World Health Organization notes that
such nutrients as vitamin K, potas-
sium, manganese, and boron, all


Super-Star Fruits and Vegetables
It is possible that only specific fruits and vegetables, rather than those entire food
groups, reduce cancer risks. For example:

 Tomatoes, possibly because of their
carotenoid lycopene, are associated
with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.90
 Citrus fruits and other sources of the
carotenoid beta-cryptoxanthin may
reduce the risk of lung cancer.91
 Cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli
and cauliflower may protect against
bladder cancer.92

Such findings have led researchers to
urge people to focus especially on eating
more of certain vegetables and fruits.93
For instance, the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans, the U.S. government’s
authoritative nutrition advice, recommends increased consumption of dark green
vegetables, orange vegetables, and legumes. Just eating more French fries and
iceberg lettuce won’t help.

found in fruits and vegetables, are associated with a decreased risk of bone
fracture.94
The 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee concluded:
Greater consumption of fruits and vegetables (5–13 servings or 2½–6½ cups
per day depending on calorie needs) is associated with a reduced risk of
stroke and perhaps other cardiovascular diseases, with a reduced risk of
cancers in certain sites (oral cavity and pharynx, larynx, lung, esophagus,
stomach, and colon-rectum), and with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes
(vegetables more than fruit). Moreover, increased consumption of fruits
and vegetables may be a useful component of programs designed to
achieve and sustain weight loss.95

Those conclusions led to these key recommendations in the Dietary Guide-
lines for Americans:
Consume a sufficient amount of fruits and vegetables while staying within
energy needs. Two cups of fruit and 2½ cups of vegetables per day are
recommended for a reference 2,000-calorie intake, with higher or lower
amounts depending on the calorie level.


Choose a variety of fruits and vegetables each day. In particular, select from
all five vegetable subgroups (dark green, orange, legumes, starchy veg-
etables, and other vegetables) several times a week.96

Whole Grains
Whole grains are grains that have not been processed to remove the high-
fiber bran and germ, which contain much of the protein, vitamins, and min-
erals. Whole grains are excellent sources of B vitamins, vitamin E, fiber,
zinc, iron, other minerals, and a multitude of phytochemicals; these last
are naturally occurring chemicals in plants. Many of those substances are
largely lost when grain is refined, leaving mostly starch behind. In the
United States, four of
the B vitamins and
iron are added back
to “enriched” grains,
but that does not fully
compensate for the
losses.
While the aver-
age American eats
11 servings of grains
daily, only 1 of those
servings is whole
grain. Only 7 percent of Americans eat at least three servings a day of
whole grains.97 Instead, virtually all of the grain foods we eat (bread, pasta,
cereals, crackers, cookies) are made from white flour, rice is usually white
rice, and corn meal is usually degermed.

Decrease the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease
Eating more whole grains appears to reduce the risk of both heart disease
and stroke.98 James W. Anderson, at the Metabolic Research Center at the
University of Kentucky, did a meta-analysis of 13 epidemiology studies and
concluded that people who ate the most whole grains had a 29 percent lower
risk for heart disease than those who ate the least. Even more impressive
was the benefit of whole grains in women who never smoked. The Nurses’
Health Study found that non-smokers who consumed about three servings
of whole grains a day had only half the risk of developing heart disease as
women who almost never ate whole grains. In addition, eating more whole
grains was associated with a one-third lower risk of ischemic stroke—the
kind of stroke that occurs when a blood clot blocks an artery in the brain.


Decrease the Risk of Diabetes
Three large epidemiology studies indicated that whole grains strongly
protect against diabetes.99 The risk of diabetes was about 25 percent lower
for people who ate the most whole grains. Another study found that over-
weight adults who ate 6 to 10 servings of whole grains a day had lower
insulin levels than when they ate refined grains.100 Lower insulin levels can
reduce the risk of both diabetes and heart disease.

Clean Out the System
Finally, eating more whole-grain foods could spare millions of people from
constipation and other gastrointestinal problems. The fiber in whole grains
reduces constipation by increasing fecal bulk, softening stools, and speed-
ing the passage of food through the intestinal tract.101 In contrast, low-fiber
diets lead to hard stools that require a great deal of straining to pass. That
straining can lead to increased pressure in the colon and result in diverticu-
lar disease (diverticulosis and diverticulitis) and hemorrhoids.102
While fiber-rich whole grains were once thought to prevent colon can-
cer, recent studies indicate that that is unlikely.

Nuts—Protect Against Heart Disease
Several studies strongly suggest that nuts (including peanuts, which
account for two-thirds of all the nuts Americans consume) protect against
heart disease.103 In one study, individuals who ate nuts one to four times
weekly had a 22 percent lower risk of heart attack than those eating nuts
less than once a week. Eating nuts five or more times per week was associ-
ated with a 51 percent lower risk. Those results were consistent in men and
women and in younger and older people. In other studies, both walnuts
and almonds had a cholesterol-lowering effect when they replaced meat,
cheese, or other dairy products.
Nuts’ health benefits are likely due, in part, to their monounsaturated
and polyunsaturated fatty acid content; those fats lower LDL cholesterol.104
Other factors may be involved as well, because, as Penny Kris-Etherton and
her colleagues at Penn State University found, the effects of nuts on blood
cholesterol are greater than predicted on the basis of their fat composition.
Other compounds in nuts that may protect against heart disease include
dietary fiber, vitamin E, folic acid, copper, magnesium, potassium, arginine,
phytochemicals, and plant sterols. The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has concluded that “Scientific evidence suggests but does not prove

Peanuts technically are legumes, which are discussed below.


that eating 1.5 ounces per day of most nuts as part of a diet low in saturated
fat and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart disease.” The main concern
about nuts is their high calorie content. It’s easy to eat too many nuts, which
could lead to weight gain.

Legumes (Beans)—Lower the Risk of Heart Disease
Legumes include dried beans and peas, such as pinto beans, kidney beans,
chickpeas, soybeans, and peanuts. (Peanuts account for almost half of all
the legumes Americans eat.105) Legumes are nutritional powerhouses, and
greater consumption of them
is strongly associated with a
lower risk of heart disease.106
James W. Anderson and his
colleagues at the University
of Kentucky and the Veterans
Administration Medical Cen-
ter in Lexington, Kentucky,
reviewed 11 clinical trials
that examined the effects of
legumes (not including soy-
beans and peanuts) on blood
lipids. They found that total blood cholesterol and LDL cholesterol levels
dropped by 6 to 7 percent when 1½ to 5 ounces per day of navy beans, pinto
beans, chickpeas, kidney beans, or lentils were included in the usual diet.107
(In some studies, legumes replaced pasta or other starchy foods, while in
others they were just added to the diet.) The Kentucky researchers specu-
lated that legumes’ soluble fiber, vegetable protein, folic acid, thiamin, oli-
gosaccharides, and antioxidants may all play a role.
Researchers at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropi-
cal Medicine found that men and women who ate legumes four or more

Soy Foods: No Health Miracle
Some people claim that soybeans—a dietary staple in China, Japan, and certain
other Asian countries—reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and
other conditions. However, recent studies indicate that the effect of soy prod-
ucts on LDL (bad) cholesterol levels and blood pressure is trivial.108 It is not clear
whether they protect against cancer.109 Soy foods also do not appear to benefit
postmenopausal women in terms of bone density and cognitive function.110 Soy
products’ main health benefit may be that those foods can replace animal prod-
ucts that are high in saturated fat and cholesterol.


times per week had a 22 percent lower risk of heart disease than people
who ate legumes less than once a week.111 The reduced risk of heart disease
was not just due to the bean-eaters’ eating less meat and poultry. Another
study, this involving people in Japan, Sweden, Greece, and Australia, found
that every 20-gram increase in daily legume consumption was associated
with about a 7 percent lower risk of death.112

Beef and Other Red Meat
Beef is a rich source of important nutrients, including protein, vitamin B12
and other B vitamins, iron, and zinc. Heme iron, the form of iron found in
meat, fish, and poultry, is easily absorbed and can help maintain iron status
and prevent anemia. Zinc is also well absorbed from meat. Unfortunately,
those nutrients—which can also be obtained from plant sources, fortified
foods, or dietary supplements—are often accompanied by hefty amounts of
saturated fat and cholesterol. Nutritionally, that is beef’s Achilles’ heel.

The Fatty Flaws of Meat and Dairy Foods

Saturated Fat
Animal products account for at least half of the saturated fat Americans eat every
day (palm oil also is high in saturated fat). The figure shows the top 10 sources of
saturated fat by percentage.113
Cheese
Saturated fat boosts LDL cholesterol
13%
in blood, thereby increasing the risk
Other
Beef
of heart disease.114 Some studies also
35% 12%
link saturated fat to diabetes.115 In
contrast, unsaturated fats from liquid
8% Milk vegetable oils protect against heart
disease.
4% 5%
Poultry 5% Oils
4%
Salad dressings, 4% 5% 5% Since even small amounts of satu-
Ice cream
mayonnaise rated fat increase the risk of heart
Butter Cakes
Other fats disease, and there is no need for that
fat in the diet, the Institute of Medi-
cine of the National Academy of Sciences did not set a “safe” intake level.116 How-
ever, because small amounts of saturated fat occur in everything from corn oil
to whole wheat bread, it is impossible and even undesirable for people to try to
reduce their intake to zero. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends
that healthy people consume no more than 10 percent (compared to the current
11 percent) of their calories from saturated fat. People with elevated LDL choles-


Raise the Risks of Heart Attack and Hypertension
Some studies have linked high meat consumption to an increased risk of
chronic disease. For example, Frank Sacks and his colleagues at Harvard
and the Framingham Heart Study added about 8 ounces of beef to the daily
diet of strict vegetarians (vegans) in place of an amount of grains that pro-
vided the same number of calories. After four weeks, the subjects’ average
blood cholesterol level rose 19 percent.121 Presumably, beef’s saturated fat
and cholesterol were the culprits. Lean beef likely would have had a smaller
effect.
Beef’s role in causing heart disease was also indicated in a study of
Seventh-day Adventists, as noted earlier. Men who consumed beef three or
more times per week had more than twice the risk of a fatal heart attack as
men who never ate beef.122
Beef consumption also boosts blood pressure.123 Sacks’s clinical study
mentioned above found that replacing grains with beef increased the sub-

terol are advised to limit their intake to 7 percent of their calories (that is actually
good advice for everyone).117 The best way to cut back is to eat less fatty dairy
products and meat.

Cholesterol
Cholesterol occurs only in animal products, including egg yolks, dairy products,
shellfish and fish, and meat. The figure shows the top 10 sources of cholesterol by
percentage. Cholesterol is in both the lean and fatty parts of meat, so choosing
lean meat helps lower saturated
fat, but not cholesterol, intake.
Our bodies produce all the cho- Other
17%
lesterol they need. Sausage 29% Eggs
2%
Ice cream 3%
Dietary cholesterol increases
Pork 3%
LDL cholesterol levels in blood Cakes, cookies 3%
and the risk of heart disease.118 Fish, 4%
The average cholesterol intake shellfish 5%
Milk 16%
for middle-aged (19–50 years 6%
Cheese 12% Beef
old) men is around 350 milli-
Poultry
grams and for women 210 mil-
ligrams.119 While official recom-
mendations120 are to limit cholesterol to 300 milligrams daily—200 milligrams or
less for people with elevated LDL cholesterol—the less cholesterol consumed, the
better. However, small amounts—from poached salmon, skinless chicken, or even
an occasional egg yolk—are not a problem.


jects’ systolic blood pressure by 3 percent in just four weeks. When thou-
sands of women were monitored for several years in the Nurses’ Health
Study, eating more beef and processed meats was associated with a higher
systolic blood pressure. Furthermore, a study of several thousand young
adults found that people who ate more beef and pork were likelier to
develop elevated blood pressure.

Raise the Risk of Cancer
According to the American Cancer Society, red meat may increase the risk
of cancer of the colon and rectum.124 Similarly, the World Health Organi-
zation advises that high intakes of red and processed meats “probably”
increase the risk of those cancers.
A major study by the American Cancer Society examined more than
148,000 adults who had provided dietary information 9 and 19 years ear-
lier.125 People who ate the most beef and pork at both points in time had the
highest risk of rectal cancer. Those who ate the most processed meat—such
as ham and bacon—also had a higher risk of cancer in the part of the large
intestine closest to the rectum.
In other studies, Seventh-day Adventist men and women who ate red
meat one or more times a week had almost twice the risk of colon cancer
as those who never ate red meat.126 The EPIC study, which is tracking diet
and disease in half a million Europeans, found that eating more red meat
and processed meat increases
the risk of colorectal cancer.127
Eating more than about 7
ounces per day of those meats
was associated with a one-
third increase in colon cancer.
Processed meat appears to be
more harmful than red meat.
A meta-analysis of almost
two dozen studies indicated
Consumption of red meat—especially processed meats— a 35 percent increased risk of
increases the risk of colon cancer and possibly cancer of
the pancreas. colon cancer in people who
ate red meat and a 31 percent
increase in people who ate processed meat compared to those who ate little
or no meat.128 Every 3½-ounce-per-day increase in consumption of red meat
was associated with about a 15 percent increased risk of colon cancer, while
every 1-ounce increase in daily consumption of processed meat was associ-
ated with almost a 49 percent higher risk.129


New research suggests that red meat—especially processed red meat—
also increases the risk of pancreatic cancer.130 Whether it’s the meat itself or
contaminants or additives introduced into the meat during processing is
not yet known.

Increase the Risk of Diabetes
The Harvard School of Public Health’s study of over 40,000 male health pro-
fessionals found that processed meat appears to increase the risk of dia-
betes. Harvard’s parallel Nurses’ Health Study, involving almost 70,000
women, found that diabetes was linked strongly to consumption of bacon,
and less strongly to hot dogs, other processed meats, and red meat.131

Poultry
Fortunately, considering how much of it we are eating these days, poultry
does not appear to contribute directly to chronic disease. Indeed, poultry
is usually lower in fat and saturated fat than red meat, so it is much health-
ier to eat in terms of heart disease. On the other hand, much of the chicken
Americans eat has been deep-fried by restaurants in partially hydroge-
nated oil, the major source of heart-damaging trans fat, and heavily salted.
That’s plain old junk food.

Dairy Products
Healthy, to a Point…
Dairy products are excellent sources of calcium, and fluid milk is an excel-
lent source of vitamin D. Those nutrients, along with potassium, are needed
to build and maintain bones at all ages. A number of studies have found
that people who consume more dairy products have stronger, denser bones,
and thus a lower risk of developing osteoporosis (“brittle bone” disease) or
of fracturing a bone.132 The protective effect of dairy products is strongest
in younger women and less significant in women over 50. (There is lim-

Replacing Elsie Healthfully
Dairy products are Americans’ biggest sources of calcium, vitamin D, and potas-
sium. But people who choose to eat little or no dairy foods can get calcium from
green leafy vegetables, tortillas processed with lime, fortified foods, and supple-
ments. They can get vitamin D from fortified foods (soymilk, breakfast cereals),
supplements, or exposure to sunlight. Potassium is widely distributed in fruits and
vegetables. That said, dairy foods may contain unique compounds that people who
eschew those foods would miss out on.133


ited information on the benefits to men’s bone health of eating more dairy
products.134)
Dairy products also appear to help the body regulate blood pressure,
thereby reducing the incidence of hypertension.135 Adding three servings
per day of low-fat dairy products to a healthy diet (low in saturated fat and
total fat and high in fruits and vegetables) reduces blood pressure. Con-
sistent with that, dairy products have been associated with a reduced risk
of stroke and metabolic syndrome (a group of symptoms including obesity
and insulin resistance that increases the risk for heart disease and type 2
diabetes).

…But Linked to Heart Disease and Various Cancers
Whole milk and many cheeses are major sources of saturated fat and cho-
lesterol, which cause heart disease. Milk and cheese account for 21 percent
of the saturated fat and 11 percent of the cholesterol in the American diet.136
Cheese is now the single greatest source of saturated fat. Considering that
whole milk has been a major (though declining) source of saturated fat in
the American diet, it is no surprise that studies have correlated higher con-
sumption with heart attacks. In the Nurses’ Health Study, women who
drank two or more glasses of whole milk a day had a two-thirds greater
risk of fatal and nonfatal heart attacks than women who drank less than
one glass a week.137
People could (and should) switch to fat-free dairy products. However,
from a public health perspective, that doesn’t lower the overall risk of heart
disease, because the milkfat ends up in cheaper butter or in cream, pre-
mium ice cream, and other high-fat foods. Suggestions for ways to lower
the fat or saturated fat content of cow’s milk are discussed in “Reduce the
Fat Content of Milk,” p. 154.
Dairy products also have been associated with increased or decreased
risks of certain cancers.138 Eight of 11 studies that monitored large groups


of men over a number of years linked dairy foods to an increased risk of
prostate cancer. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health stated
that the association between dairy products and prostate cancer is one of
the more consistent dietary predictors for prostate cancer. According to one
estimate, eating three servings per day of dairy products is associated with
a 9 percent greater risk of prostate cancer—or 20,000 more cases per year.139
(Note, however, that most men actually consume about half that many
servings.140)
Just what it is in dairy products that might promote prostate cancer is
not known. The fat does not appear to be the problem, because several stud-
ies linked skim and low-fat milk to prostate cancer.141 Several studies have
suggested that calcium is the culprit, although others dispute this.142
While dairy foods might promote prostate cancer, they also might
reduce the risk of other cancers. Some studies have found a modestly lower
risk of colorectal cancer in people who consumed more milk.143 (Cheese and
yogurt did not appear to protect against cancer.) And dairy products may
reduce the risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women, but the evidence
is inconsistent.144 But while we await more research, we need to eat. Consid-
ering dairy products’ pluses and minuses, it makes sense to consume two
or three servings of them a day, but not go overboard with five or six.

Eggs
Keep the Whites, Toss the Yolks…
The main health concern with eggs is their effect on heart disease. The
problem is not whole eggs, but the yolks. Egg yolks supply close to 30 per-
cent of the 270 milligrams of cholesterol in the average adult’s daily diet.145
While 270 milligrams is within the “less than 300 mg per day” guideline,
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee states that “cholesterol
intake should be kept as low as possible, within a nutritionally adequate
diet.”146 Dietary cholesterol increases LDL cholesterol in blood, which, in
turn, increases the risk of heart disease.147 Egg whites, in contrast, are rich
in protein and free of cholesterol.

…To Reduce the Risk of Heart Disease
The high cholesterol content of egg yolks implies that egg-rich diets would
increase the risk of heart disease—and studies of populations indicate that
eggs do exactly that. For example, the Oxford Vegetarian Study found that
eating eggs more frequently was associated with a substantial increase in
the risk of death from heart disease.148 Dutch researchers conducted a meta-
analysis of 17 well-controlled studies on the effect of dietary cholesterol


from eggs on the ratio of total blood cholesterol to HDL (good) choles-
terol.149 Many experts consider that ratio to be one of the best indicators
of heart-disease risk, with higher ratios indicating greater risks. In all but
one of the studies examined, the researchers found that increased egg
consumption was associated with higher ratios. Finally, men and women
with diabetes have an increased risk of heart disease as their egg con-
sumption increases.150 The bottom line is that we should eat fewer egg
yolks.

Fish
Decreases Risk of Heart Disease and Cancer
Fish is generally quite healthful, notwithstanding several concerns dis-
cussed below. Eating fish reduces the risk of heart disease. A meta-analy-
sis of studies involving a total of more than 200,000 people found that those
who ate fish at least once a week had a 15 percent lower risk of dying from
coronary heart disease than those who ate fish less than once a month. Peo-
ple who ate fish five or more times per week had almost a 40 percent lower
risk.151 Of course, frying fish in partially hydrogenated oil—as restaurants
often do—turns a dietary plus into a minus.
The health benefits of fish probably come from a favorable mix of fatty
acids, including low levels of saturated fat and high levels (in some species)
of two omega-3 fatty acids: eicosap-
entaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahex-
Not Enough Fish aenoic acid (DHA). Those omega-3s
While health experts are encourag- are thought to prevent heart attacks
ing people to eat more fish, over- and strokes.152 The World Health
fishing is driving some species to Organization, American Heart Asso-
the brink of extinction. Populations ciation, and 2005 Dietary Guidelines for
of Pacific cod, Atlantic sturgeon, Americans all recommend eating at
shark, monkfish, numerous variet- least two servings of fish per week.153
ies of rockfish, and others are all
Eating fish may also protect
in trouble. Even aquaculture is a
against cancer. The large EPIC study
problem, because some farmed fish,
in Europe found that people who ate
such as salmon, are fed meal made
more than 2.8 ounces of fish per day
from small ocean-dwelling fish that
would otherwise provide food for
had a one-third lower risk of colorec-
diverse wild species. Before head- tal cancer than those eating little or
ing for the seafood counter, visit the no fish (under 0.3 ounces).154 Further-
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood more, several studies indicate that
Watch (www.mbayaq.org/). fish may reduce the risk of prostate
cancer.155


Some Seafood Contains Dangerous
Contaminants
Not everything about fish is salubri-
ous. Contamination of certain species
of fish by mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins
detracts from fish’s healthfulness,
at least for pregnant and nursing
women, infants, and young children.
Those pollutants—in fish and other
animal products—are discussed
later in this chapter (see “What in
Animal Foods Harms Us,” p. 52). In
addition, natural toxins—ciguatoxin
and scombrotoxin—in finfish and
potentially deadly Vibrio bacteria in
Gulf of Mexico shellfish cause food
poisoning.

What Actually Nourishes Us
A variety of well-known substances in foods contribute to their healthful-
ness: fiber, antioxidants, folate, and potassium, to name a few. In addition,
plants contain thousands of other phytochemicals that may have health
benefits. Some of the substances, such as potassium, that are found in plants
also occur in animal foods; others, such as fiber and vitamin C, occur only
in, or are more abundant in, plants.

Dietary Fiber
All minimally processed plant-based foods contain fiber. Highly processed
plant-based foods, such as white flour, sugar, and vegetable oil provide lit-
tle or no fiber. Animal products—meat, dairy, eggs, and seafood—provide
no fiber at all.
Fiber actually encompasses a multitude of different substances. These
are typically divided into two broad groups:
 Soluble (or viscous) fiber, commonly found in fruits, oats, barley, and
dried beans, dissolves in water and can slow the rate at which food
leaves the stomach, which may help with weight control as well as reduce
blood glucose levels.156 Soluble fiber also interferes with the absorption of
dietary cholesterol and reduces LDL cholesterol in blood.157


 Insoluble fiber, which occurs in
What Fiber Does Not Do
whole grains, nuts, and some fruits
and vegetables, does not dissolve Fiber is not a panacea. Researchers
in water. Cellulose, some hemicel- at the National Cancer Institute and
luloses, and lignins are the most elsewhere long thought that dietary
common insoluble fibers. Insolu- fiber helped prevent colon cancer.159
However, several important epide-
ble fiber increases stool bulk, alle-
miology studies and three interven-
viates constipation, and reduces
tion trials did not find a benefit.160
the risk of diverticular disease.158
Fiber also does not appear to pre-
Fiber—especially soluble fiber vent pre- or postmenopausal breast
and fiber from grain products—has cancer.161
been consistently linked to a lower
risk of heart disease.162 A long-term Harvard study of male health profes-
sionals found that men who ate an average of 29 grams of total fiber per day
had half the risk of fatal heart disease as those who ate half as much fiber.163
A subsequent study conducted by Tulane University scientists found that
men and women who consumed about 6 grams of soluble fiber per day had
a 24 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease and a 12 percent lower
mortality from all causes compared to those who consumed about 1 gram
per day.164 Cereal fiber was more closely associated with the reduced risk than
was fiber from fruits and vegetables. In women, eating 5 grams per day more
cereal fiber—equivalent to two or three slices of whole wheat bread—was
associated with a 37 percent lower risk of heart attack and stroke.165
A meta-analysis found that each 10-gram increase in dietary fiber
was associated with a 14 percent lower risk of all coronary events and a
27 percent lower risk of death from heart disease. Fiber from cereal and
fruit appeared to provide the most benefit, while fiber from vegetables had
little effect.166 The results were similar for men and women.
At a time when millions of people are seeking cures for obesity, it is
important to note that people who eat the most fiber tend to weigh less.167
Dietary fiber helps control weight in several ways:
 Fiber-rich foods have to be chewed more, which slows eating speed.
 Fiber-rich foods take up a relatively large volume in the stomach, mak-
ing people feel full sooner.168
 Soluble fiber slows stomach emptying, which keeps people feeling full
for a longer time.169
The World Health Organization and others have identified diets high in
dietary fiber—that is, rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and beans—as
an important means of preventing obesity.170


One final virtue of fiber—and a most valuable one—is that it acts as
a laxative, leading to softer, bulkier stools. Fiber from wheat bran has the
greatest effect, followed closely by fiber from fruits and vegetables.171
The Institute of Medicine, a unit of the National Academy of Sciences,
recommends that middle-aged (19–50 years old) men consume 38 grams of
fiber per day and women 25 grams per day.172 Currently, the average man
and woman consume only half that much. In contrast, American and British
vegetarians consume much more: Lacto-ovo vegetarians average 23 grams
per day, while vegans average 35 grams per day.173

Folate
Folate is a B vitamin found in green vegetables, orange juice, fortified
grains, and dried beans. Among other things, this important vitamin helps
the body make new proteins, DNA, and red and white blood cells. Con-
suming too little folate during early pregnancy increases the risk of neural
tube defect, a serious birth defect in which the neural tube fails to encase
the spinal cord. Folate also may reduce the risk of colon cancer, but more
research is needed.174
Since 1998, the FDA has required that white flour for bread and pasta,
white rice, and breakfast cereals made with refined flours be fortified with
folic acid. Previously, adults consumed only about two-thirds of the recom-
mended amount of folate.175 Fortification has almost doubled Americans’
folate intake.176 Happily, the incidence of spina bifida (one type of neural
tube defect) has declined by 20 percent.177
Because plant-based foods are rich in folate, vegetarians tend to consume
more of the vitamin than non-vegetarians.178 In 1994–96 (before white flour
and white rice were fortified), the average American consumed 262 micro-
grams of folate per day.179 The average vegetarian likely consumed at least
half again more.180 Post-fortification comparisons have not been conducted.
Despite a higher level of folate, white flour is poorer in many other nutrients
and dietary fiber than whole wheat flour. People would be better off eating
foods made with whole-grain flour, plus a multivitamin supplement.

Potassium
The mineral potassium is abundant in fruits, vegetables, and beans, as
well as in milk and seafood. The median potassium intake of U.S. adults
is about 3 grams per day for men and just over 2 grams for women. That is
well below the “adequate” level of 4.7 grams per day, generally because of
our limited consumption of fruits and vegetables. Some of the richest food
sources of potassium are spinach, cantaloupe, almonds, Brussels sprouts,


and bananas,181 but the biggest sources in the American diet are milk, pota-
toes, coffee, and beef.182
Potassium plays an important role in regulating blood pressure.183 A
higher intake of potassium is associated with a lower blood pressure, and
increasing potassium can reduce blood pressure in people with or without
hypertension. Higher potassium intakes, judging from several studies,
lower the risk of stroke.
Consuming more potassium has been associated with greater bone
density and less age-related decline in bone density.184 In addition, a higher
potassium intake may well reduce the risk of kidney stones.185

Unsaturated Oils
Most fats and oils in plants, including soy, corn, canola, safflower, olive, and
sunflower oils, contain beneficial mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Those unsaturated fats lower the bad cholesterol in our blood.186 (In con-
trast, of course, animal fats are relatively high in saturated fat and low in
unsaturated fatty acids and raise the bad cholesterol.) Based on a study of
more than 80,000 women, Harvard researchers estimated that substituting
unsaturated fat for
about one-third of the
saturated fat in a typi-
cal diet would reduce
the risk of heart dis-
ease by a hefty 42 per-
cent.187 Indeed, Amer-
icans are consuming
three times as much
salad and cooking oils
as they were 40 years
Canola plants have beautiful flowers, as well as seeds that are rich ago, a dietary change
in healthy monounsaturated oil.
that almost certainly
has prevented thousands of fatal heart attacks every year (see “The Cardio-
vascular Benefit of Eating Less Meat and Dairy,” p. 20).188

Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Omega-3 fatty acids are a family of polyunsaturated fatty acids that occur
in fatty fish, some vegetable oils, soy products, walnuts, and certain other
foods. As noted above, the omega-3s probably contribute to the association
between eating fish and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. Plants con-
tain not the EPA or DHA omega-3s that occur in fish, but another omega‑3,


alpha-linolenic acid. Unfortunately, the body converts only a small fraction
of that to EPA.189 (The body can then convert a small fraction of the EPA
to DHA.) It is unclear whether the alpha-linolenic acid reduces the risk of
heart disease.
The Institute of Medicine recommends that men consume 1.6 grams of
alpha-linolenic acid daily and that women consume 1.1 grams. Anyone who
doesn’t eat much fish should consume adequate alpha-linolenic acid from
flaxseed, flaxseed oil, canola oil, tofu, soybeans, soybean oil, and walnuts
and should consider taking a fish-oil or DHA supplement.190

Antioxidants
Antioxidants include such nutrients as vitamin C, beta-carotene, vita-
min E, and selenium. Fruits and vegetables are especially rich sources of
many antioxidants. Researchers have
long hypothesized that antioxidants
help protect against harmful oxidizing
agents, which can damage body pro-
teins, DNA, and fats. While research-
ers have speculated that antioxidants
contribute to the ability of fruits and
vegetables to reduce the risk of chronic
disease, intervention studies with vita-
min C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene
have not found any benefits.191 In fact, Fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants
that may provide health benefits.
smokers who took beta-carotene sup-
plements actually had a greater risk of lung cancer.192
Intervention studies with selenium have been more promising. Several
studies found that the mineral lowers the risk of prostate cancer and possi-
bly other cancers, especially in people with low blood levels of selenium.193
Antioxidants probably are best acquired from whole foods rather than
from dietary supplements.194 It may turn out that it is not antioxidants but
other constituents of plants that are the truly beneficial substances.

Phytochemicals
Phytochemicals can be loosely defined as any chemicals that are naturally
present in plants. Scores of different phytochemicals have been identified
in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts. General categories of
phytochemicals include carotenoids, flavonoids, isoflavones, lignans (not to
be confused with lignins, which are plant fibers), and phytosterols. Many
of them have no effect at all on health, but initial studies suggest that some


reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, cataracts, and other dis-
eases.195 While researchers work out the details, consumers should just eat
plenty of a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts and not
bother taking supplements that are costly and contain just a few cheap and
convenient phytochemicals. Much exciting new research is exploring the
exact role of phytochemicals in disease prevention.

What in Animal Foods Harms Us
Although some animal products are rich sources of protein, calcium, iron,
zinc, and other essential nutrients, many also are rich sources of potentially
harmful components, including saturated fat and cholesterol (see “The Fatty
Flaws of Meat and Dairy Foods,” p. 40). In addition, chemical by-products
of cooking and environmental toxins—such as heterocyclic amines (HCAs),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, and pesticides—often
occur in fatty animal products and may be harmful.

Heterocyclic Amines and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
HCAs form when meat, poultry, fish, and eggs are cooked at high temper-
atures, especially by grilling or frying. HCAs are potent mutagens (agents
that cause genetic mutations) that cause cancer in animals.196
Another group of chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, form
when fat from meat, poultry, and fish drips onto hot coals or a flame. PAHs
are created and then rise with the smoke, contaminating the food.197 The
nutrition-oriented World Cancer Research Foundation identified grilled
and barbecued meats and fish as possible causes of stomach and colon can-
cer.198 The National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services says that PAHs and four HCAs are “reasonably antici-
pated to be human carcinogens.”199 As with other carcinogens, the more of
those substances that are consumed, the greater the risk, but the risk from
using the backyard grill a few times over the summer is trivial.

Environmental Contaminants
Environmental contaminants, including pesticides (see “Risks from Pesti-
cides,” next page), industrial chemicals, and various pollutants, often accu-
mulate in animal fat. That is why meat, full-fat dairy products, and fatty fish
tend to be the major sources of those contaminants. Fat-soluble contami-
nants persist for many years in human (or other animals’) fatty tissue and
occur in breast milk. Some of the contaminants cause cancer in experimen-
tal animals and appear to cause behavioral abnormalities in humans.


Risks from Pesticides
Pesticides are widely
used to control insects,
weeds, and fungi on
cropland and crops. Of
the 511 million pounds
of pesticides used
in 2001, 181 million
pounds were used on
crops for livestock.200
The vast majority—167
million pounds—was
used for feed grains,
with the remainder
for hay and pasture.

It is difficult to deter-
mine the health effects
of pesticides on con-
sumers, because the
levels of pesticide
residues in food and
water are minuscule
and the effects may
be rare or subtle. No
one expects there to
be a trail of sick peo-
ple leading from the
dinner table to the hospital. Rather, the concern is that long-term exposure to low
levels of numerous pesticides may cause diseases ranging from autism to cancer
or impair the immune system.201

Animal Studies: Raising Concerns
Many pesticides, including alachlor, acetochlor, and atrazine—herbicides widely
applied to animal feed crops—have caused tumors in laboratory animals, includ-
ing stomach tumors in male rats and stomach, lung, and mammary tumors in
female rats.202 When a chemical causes tumors in animals, it is presumed to
pose a cancer threat to humans. Other pesticides, such as carbaryl and methyl-
phenoxyacetic acid, when tested at high doses suppressed the immune systems of
lab animals and may cause autoimmune disorders; they also damaged the spleens,
livers, kidneys, and nervous systems of the animals.203 While those results are


intriguing, if not downright scary, epidemiology studies can help clarify whether
the chemicals actually harm humans.

Farmers: The Canary in the Coal Mine
Farmers, not by choice, serve as important indicators of health risks from pesti-
cides. And some of the studies on farmers who regularly apply pesticides suggest
significant risks. While farmers have lower overall rates of cancer than the general
population, due to factors such as less smoking, they have higher rates of several
cancers (see figure).204

Increased risk of cancer among farmers compared to the general population
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Leukemia Prostate Stomach Multiple Melanoma Hodgkin’s Lip
myeloma lymphoma

Note: Results are based on surveys of farmers in the United States and abroad.205 Increases are
statistically significant.

Many factors contribute to the higher cancer rates among farmers. For instance, the
higher rate of melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer, may be from working long
hours in direct sunlight. Pesticide exposure also appears to be a significant factor.

 California researchers Paul K. Mills and Richard Yang concluded that the higher
risk of prostate cancer in Hispanic farmworkers was related to their exposure
to certain herbicides.206
 The National Cancer Institute’s Agricultural Health Study, which involves nearly
90,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, associated an increased risk of
prostate cancer with six different pesticides.207
 Nebraska farmers who applied 2,4–dichlorophenoxy acetic acid more than
20 days a year were three times as likely to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
as farmers not exposed to the pesticide.208 That herbicide is often applied to
almost every major grain and roughage crop fed to livestock.209


That said, some studies did not find clear links between two widely used herbi-
cides—atrazine and glyphosate—and cancer.210

Organophosphate pesticides are highly neurotoxic, causing weakness and even
paralysis.211 They make up nearly half of all insecticides (some also serve as her-
bicides and fungicides) used in the United States, with some 5 million pounds
annually applied to corn, hay, soybean, wheat, pasture, and other crops.212 Heavy
exposure of farmworkers (and others) to organophosphates has been linked to
memory loss, confusion, limb paralysis, and behavioral abnormalities, as well as
paralysis of the lungs (which causes death by suffocation).213 One study linked
the now-banned soil fumigant 1,2–dibromo-3–chloropropane to reduced or absent
sperm production in farmworkers.214

Health Effects in Consumers: The Big Question Mark
Consumers are exposed to far lower levels of pesticides than farmers and pesticide
applicators, so the risks to them are far smaller. However, children are particularly
vulnerable, because they metabolize certain pesticides differently from adults
and they consume higher concentrations of pesticides relative to their weight.215
Subtle impairment of IQ or behavior would be of great import, but undetectable.

While most consumers are especially concerned about pesticide residues on fruits
and vegetables, which are directly sprayed, fat-soluble pesticides in animal prod-
ucts actually pose the bigger risk. That’s because livestock are fed large amounts
of pesticide-tainted feed grains and accumulate pesticide residues in their fat.

Agricultural pesticides may well be causing the same problems in consumers as
they cause in lab animals and farmworkers, albeit at a much lower frequency
and severity. Much of the concern focuses on weakening the immune system,
which might lead to higher rates of infectious diseases and cancer. That is espe-
cially true for people, such as Inuit children, whose diets contain high levels of
pesticides and toxic chemicals.216 However, actually proving that the average
consumer is harmed may be impossible. Consumers could reduce their exposure
to pesticides by purchasing foods produced on organic farms or farms that use
integrated pest management and by eating less meat, poultry, dairy, and egg
products overall.

Polychlorinated biphenyls are highly toxic industrial chemicals that
are “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens.”217 In addition, PCBs
endanger fetuses and young children because they can affect the develop-
ing brain. The contaminant concentrates in animal fat and enters our diets
and bodies through fish, cheese, eggs, and other foods. A 2003 report by
the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found that samples of farmed
salmon from the East and West Coasts of the United States contained three


times as much PCBs as typical commercial seafood and about four times
more PCBs than beef.218
PCBs in farmed salmon are a problem for children and pregnant women,
but less so for others. For the average adult the cardiovascular benefit from
omega-3 fatty acids in salmon far outweighs the cancer risk from PCBs. The
Center for Science in the Public Interest estimates that if 100,000 people ate
one serving of farmed salmon per week, one person would develop cancer,
but 1,500 people would be spared death from cardiac arrest.219
Another fat-soluble industrial contaminant that lurks in food—and
human blood and breast milk—is polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
According to Arnold Schechter and his colleagues at the University of Texas
Health Science Center in Dallas, “food is a major route of intake for PBDEs,”
with fish, cheese, butter, and poultry being the most contaminated.220 These
chemicals, which are used as flame retardants in everything from furniture
foam to plastics in personal computers, are chemically and toxicologically
similar to PCBs. The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that
PBDEs cause liver and thyroid toxicity, as well as neurodevelopmental
problems.221 The agency banned the most toxic types of PBDEs in 2005, but
residues of these chemicals will persist in the environment—and food sup-
ply—for many years to come.

Mercury
Mercury is a toxic metal spewed into the air by coal-burning power plants
and carried around the globe. It accumulates in the tissues of fish, especially
large predatory fish. Like PCBs, mercury is especially toxic to fetuses and
young children and can cause irreversible neurological damage. That’s why
the Environmental Protection Agency and the FDA recommend that women
who are or may become pregnant, nursing women, and young children com-
pletely avoid shark, swordfish, and king mackerel. Other fish and shellfish
should be limited to 12 ounces (6 ounces for albacore tuna) per week.222

What It All Means
Over the past half-century, hundreds of studies—animal, clinical, epide-
miological, and intervention—have examined the effect of diet on health
from every conceivable angle. They provide strong, consistent evidence
that diets rich in animal foods (except fish)—especially fatty meat and dairy
products—and poor in healthy plant-based foods contribute to hyperten-
sion, stroke, heart disease, cancer, obesity, and diabetes. That rich body of
research has led the world’s leading health experts to emphasize the ben-
efits of plant-based diets. The World Health Organization, the U.S. govern-


ment’s 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the American Academy of Pedi-
atrics, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and
many other authoritative health agencies all recommend that people eat
more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and modest amounts of non-fried
seafood and poultry, low-fat dairy products, and lean meat.223 Most health
experts also strongly recommend that people cut back on salt, refined sug-
ars, and partially hydrogenated oils. Eating more of the healthy foods pro-
vides essential nutrients and squeezes less-healthy foods off the plate. In
“Changing Your Own Diet” (p. 143), we provide more specific advice on
what precisely a healthy diet should include, along with a scorecard for
evaluating your diet.

Meatless burgers are being made of everything from chickpeas (above) to mushrooms and oats to
soybeans.

Argument #2.
Less Foodborne Illness

A
potent case of food poisoning, with its nausea, vomiting, and
I-think-I’m-going-to-die misery, is unforgettable. Some of the
most common causes of food poisoning are the bacteria and
viruses carried by farm animals
and that are abundant in their
manure. Many common germs live  More than 1,000 Americans die each
year from foodborne illnesses linked
harmlessly in animals but can make
to meat, poultry, dairy, and egg
people deathly ill. Those patho-
products.
gens can jump from animals to peo-
 The annual medical and related
ple through tainted food, air, soil,
costs of foodborne illnesses in the
water, or direct contact between
United States are at least $7 bil-
people and livestock. lion.
Although diet-related chronic
 Fruits and vegetables are a major
diseases, such as heart disease and cause of food poisoning thanks, in
various kinds of cancer, kill many part, to contamination from live-
more people than food poisoning, stock manure.
the sudden onset of food poisoning  Raising large numbers of poultry and
and the fact that it can be traced pigs increases the risk of deadly flu
to particular foods add urgency to epidemics.
efforts to control it.

59


The Scope and Costs of Foodborne Illness
Foodborne illnesses are caused by such well-known bacteria as Campylo-
bacter jejuni, the deadly O157:H7 strain of Escherichia coli (E. coli), and several
types of Salmonella, as well as by such little-known germs as Norwalk-like
viruses. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) esti-
mates that pathogens in food cause about 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hos-
pitalizations, and 5,200 deaths each year (see table 1).1 Norwalk-like viruses,
which cause gastrointestinal distress, are the most common source of ill-
nesses whose causes have been identified. Typically, they are transferred
to food by poor sanitary practices during preparation. Although bacteria
cause fewer illnesses than viruses, they are more likely to be fatal. In fact,
listeriosis, caused by Listeria monocytogenes, is fatal in 20 percent of the peo-
ple it infects. Germs, such as E. coli and Salmonella, associated with food ani-
mals accounted for at least 1,100 of the deaths (and probably many more in
the “unknown” category).

Table 1. Major causes and costs of foodborne illnesses and deaths in the
United States (annual estimates)2
Cost (medical, lost
productivity,
Pathogen Illnesses Deaths premature death)
Campylobacter 2,000,000 100 $1.2 billion
Salmonella 1,300,000 550 $2.4 billion
Clostridium perfringens 249,000 7 Not available
Bacteria
Staphylococcus 185,000 2 $1.2 billion
E. coli* 94,000 80 $1.0 billion
Listeria 2,500 500 $2.3 billion
Cryptosporidium parvum 300,000 7 Not available
Parasites Giardia† 200,000 1 $0.5 billion
Toxoplasma gondii 113,000 380 Not available
Viruses Norwalk-like viruses 9,200,000 120 Not available
Unknown 62,000,000 3,200 Not available
Total ‡
76,300,000 5,207 $6.9 billion
* The estimate covers only O157:H7 and other shiga toxin-producing strains of E. coli. Other strains
of E. coli cause additional illnesses.
†
Although cattle carry Giardia, it is unclear whether they carry strains that can infect humans. The
deaths may be due to Giardia from wildlife or other sources.
‡
Figures do not sum to totals because data are limited to those pathogens causing in excess of
100,000 illnesses or 80 deaths. See source for complete listings. Moreover, $6.9 billion probably is
an underestimate because the costs of many major foodborne illnesses never have been calculated;
this total covers only about 9 percent of the estimated 76 million foodborne illnesses suffered each
year.

Argument #2. Less Foodborne Illness • 61

The causes of food poisonings are rarely tracked down, because it is not
worth the effort and cost when only single individuals are affected. Instead,
public health experts focus on outbreaks affecting dozens or hundreds of
people. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has compiled a
database of 3,810 outbreaks caused by germs (plus another 700 caused by
toxins in fish) and for which the contaminated food was identified.3 Though
the database covers only a small percentage of foodborne illnesses, it indi-
cates which foods pose the greatest risks.
Red meat and poultry—including luncheon meats—caused more than
1,200 of the outbreaks in CSPI’s database (see table 2). Americans eat far less
seafood than meat and poultry, yet seafood was linked to more than 300 of
the outbreaks. Fruits and vegetables, normally thought of as being perfectly
safe, caused over 500 of the identified outbreaks. However, about one-third
of those outbreaks actually were caused by germs normally associated with
animal manure, as were two-thirds in the “other” category. Dairy was the
safest major category in the database, causing about 150 of the identified
outbreaks, but the largest outbreaks on record were caused by dairy foods.4
In 1985, milk contaminated with Salmonella sickened over 16,000 people in
the Chicago area and killed 2. In 1994, 224,000 people around the country
were sickened by ice cream made from ingredients contaminated with Sal-
monella that was in dirty tanker trucks. All told, 58 percent of the outbreaks
were associated with animal products or germs normally associated with
livestock.
Considering how much of our food is contaminated, it is remarkable
that foodborne illnesses do not strike more people. In 2002, Consumer Reports

Table 2. Sources of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States linked
to microbial hazards, 1990–20035
Outbreaks People sickened
Food Number Percent Number Percent
Meat, poultry, luncheon meats 1,221 31 38,284 28
Seafood* 306 8 6,609 5
Vegetables and fruits 529 14 28,108 20
Eggs 329 9 10,849 8
Dairy 151 4 5,145 4
Other (sandwiches, pasta, salads, ethnic
foods, etc.) 1,274 33 49,667 36
Total †
3,810 100 138,662 100
* Includes only microbial-linked outbreaks, not those due to scombroid or ciguatera toxins in fish.
†
Percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.


magazine found that 1 percent of ground beef samples bought at grocery
stores had significant levels of fecal contamination and 4 percent were on
the brink of spoilage.6 The magazine’s tests of almost 500 fresh chickens
from 25 cities found that 42 percent were contaminated with Campylobacter
and 12 percent with Salmonella.7 Overall, 49 percent of the chickens were
contaminated with one or both
bacteria. Adding to the risk,
90 percent of the Campylobacter
and one-third of the Salmonella
were resistant to at least one
antibiotic. The U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA)
found an even bigger prob-
lem: 90 percent of birds tested
positive for Campylobacter.8
Government data also show
that about 2.3 million eggs are
Salmonella is the main culprit in egg-related food contaminated with Salmonella
poisonings and is a common contaminant in chicken and each year.9 Although thorough
meat. Shown here (pink) growing on cultured cells.
cooking kills the Campylobacter
and Salmonella in infected meat, poultry, and eggs, the contaminated raw
foods may infect consumers who touch them or eat them undercooked.
Foodborne illnesses typically occur shortly after tainted foods are eaten
and, while causing real misery, are short-lived. But they sometimes have
long-term consequences. Guillain-Barré Syndrome, an autoimmune disor-
der caused by Campylobacter infection, is one such lingering result. Reiter’s
Syndrome is a type of arthritis caused by Salmonella. Even more disturb-
ing than those relatively rare events is what a study at the Statens Serum
Institute in Denmark found. These scientists tracked 49,000 people who had
suffered gastrointestinal infections and compared them to individuals who
had not. The findings? People who had had food poisoning were more than
three times as likely to die in the following year.10 In other words, individu-
als who contract foodborne illnesses are either already in poor health—or
foodborne illnesses may be much more harmful than anyone thought.

Our Food System Increases Certain
Food-Safety Risks
Food poisoning has afflicted humans since time immemorial and was con-
sidered an inevitable part of life. Health officials and industry have improved
the safety of the food supply through the use of refrigeration, pasteuriza-


Death by Hamburger
On July 31, 2001, healthy two-year-old Kevin Kowal-
cyk woke up with diarrhea and a slight fever. Three
days later, his kidneys began to fail and his symptoms
worsened. Over the following week, he was kept alive
by a ventilator and a dialysis machine. Twelve days
after he became ill—and to the shock of his parents
and even his doctors—Kevin died. The cause? The
deadly O157:H7 strain of the bacterium Escherichia
coli,11 almost certainly from a contaminated ham-
burger.

tion, and other technologies. But in some ways we are going backward. At
least four aspects of large-scale industrial agriculture and food processing
have increased the risk of major food-poisoning outbreaks:
 Germs can be dispersed nationally and internationally with incredible rapid-
ity.12 On a typical day, 24,000 hogs are shipped from North Carolina to
27 states, as well as to Puerto Rico, Mexico, Canada, and South America.
 Severe crowding on industrial factory farms helps livestock-borne pathogens
spread from animal to animal. Half a century ago, a single chicken carry-
ing a pathogen such as influenza might infect 100 others on the same
farm; now that same bird might infect 50,000 others sharing its football
field-sized shed. And when some mutant strains of viruses and bacte-
ria would have only infected highly vulnerable animals, a particularly
infectious agent would have died out quickly in a small flock or herd
composed of mostly healthy animals. Today’s huge factory farms, on the
other hand, increase the chances of a germ’s finding weakened animals
that can act as reservoirs.
 The widespread use of antibiotics to mitigate problems caused by crowding on fac-
tory farms adds a new dimension to food-poisoning risks. The regular admin-
istration of low doses of antibiotics promotes the growth of antibiotic-
resistant bacteria (see “Factory Farming’s Antibiotic Crutch,” p. 68). Thus,
mutant bacteria that infect humans may be tougher to treat.
 Industrial processing of meat allows pathogens from a small number of animals
to contaminate large amounts of food. As Eric Schlosser reminds us in Fast
Food Nation, butchers used to provide consumers with ground beef made
from a single cut. Now that large meatpacking plants have taken over,
“there are hundreds or even thousands of animals that have contributed
to a single hamburger,” as one expert at the CDC noted.13 Consequently,


a foodborne illness that once might have affected only one family now
might affect scores of families.
Industry, of course, doesn’t want to poison its customers and, under
pressure from government, consumer groups, and the media, has been
slowly testing and instituting new measures to prevent contamination
on farms or to kill the germs at slaughterhouses. But there is a constant
tension between wanting to raise and process as many animals as rapidly
and cheaply as possible and ensuring that the food is as safe as possible.
Compromises are always made.

Animal Pathogens Can Sicken Even Vegetarians
The hazards created by livestock production increasingly jeopardize not only
the safety of meat, but also of fruits and vegetables. About 30 percent of the
food-poisoning outbreaks traced to produce actually are caused by pathogens
of animal origin.14 Fruits and vegetables can be contaminated by tainted irri-
gation water, manure used as fertilizer, or cross-contamination from meat
during transport or in the kitchen. Foods as diverse as parsley, scallions,
cantaloupes, lettuce, bean and alfalfa sprouts, orange juice, and beans have
caused outbreaks due to microbes characteristic of animal agriculture.15
While cooking kills most pathogens in meat, poultry, and some veg-
etables, other vegetables and fruit are not cooked. Who wants to cook one’s
salad to be sure it’s safe?
 In lettuce plants, E. coli O157:H7 can be drawn up by the roots and migrate
into the interior of the leaf, where the germs cannot be removed by wash-
ing. In 1996, lettuce contaminated with that bacterium caused a large out-
break of illnesses across Illinois, Connecticut, and New York. One victim
was a three-year-old girl who needed surgery to remove a pool of blood
from her brain and was left with damaged vision. Federal health officials
discovered that cattle were penned next to the barn where the lettuce
was processed and were the likely source of the contamination.16
 Between 1995 and 2002, 15 outbreaks were traced to Salmonella-contami-
nated sprouts. In one case, alfalfa sprouts harvested in Idaho from a field
adjacent to a cattle feedlot caused outbreaks in Michigan and Virginia.
The problem was so serious the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) warned in 2002 that sprouts were only safe to eat after cooking.17
 In 1991, Salmonella—presumably from animal manure on cantaloupes—
caused a major outbreak, leaving a trail of illnesses across 23 states and
into Canada. In 2002, Salmonella contaminated over 500,000 pounds of
canned kale and turnip greens.18


Washing produce helps, but as long as animal manure is anywhere
near fields and packinghouses, pathogens may be a threat.

Manure: How Many Pathogens Get Spread
Manure is one means by which germs in livestock enter the food supply
and infect humans.19 Most of the germs cause gastrointestinal problems,
but E. coli O157:H7 causes hideously painful and sometimes fatal kidney
problems (hemolytic uremic syndrome).
In a 1999–2000 USDA study of 73 cattle feedlots, 50 percent tested posi-
tive for Salmonella.20 Eleven percent of samples contained E. coli O157:H7, and
every feedlot had at least one positive sample in the course of the study.
The biggest risk to humans is probably from the fecal matter on animal
hides and from intestines that contaminates meat and poultry at slaughter-
houses. But pathogens in livestock manure also contaminate pools, lakes,
and streams. Outbreaks of gastroenteritis (inflammation of the lining of
the intestines or the
stomach) traced to
contaminated recre-
ational water doubled
between 1997–98 and
1999–2000.21 Crypto
sporidium parvum and
E. coli O157:H7 account
for nearly 90 percent
of such outbreaks. A
remarkable 60 percent
of gastroenteritis from
recreational water use
Spraying manure onto cropland also sprays bacteria.
occurred in treated
water, such as swimming pools. If manure is not adequately treated, E. coli
can leach into water—especially if a rainstorm occurs shortly after applica-
tion to cropland—and even get into well water.22 Of the outbreaks caused by
contaminated drinking water in 1999–2000 where the cause was identified,
the majority resulted from animal-borne pathogens.23
Farmers can compost manure to decrease the populations of bacteria
enough to allow it to be spread as fertilizer, but they must control the tem-
perature and aeration, which can be difficult and costly given the massive
quantities of manure generated by large animal feeding operations. Bac-
teria can survive in the lagoons of liquefied livestock waste, which mimic
the moist, oxygen-poor climate of the intestines in which they thrive. Thus,


when lagoon liquid is sprayed onto fields, bacteria are sprayed, too.24 Dry-
ing mounds of manure before application—another popular technique—is
better than lagoon storage for eliminating bacteria, but serious risks remain.
The hardy E. coli O157:H7 can survive for 21 months in an unaerated manure
pile and for 4 months in an aerated pile. Even harsh winters cannot eradi-
cate the germ: It can survive 100 days in frozen manure.25
One researcher discovered the tenacity of pathogens while studying a
variety of vegetables grown in soil that was fertilized with manure inocu-
lated with Salmonella and E. coli. Both of those bacteria were found on the
harvested produce, and they also survived in the soil even after repeated
cycles of freezing and thawing.26 Furthermore, although cattle typically
remain positive for E. coli O157:H7 for only a month, keeping a herd in a
feedlot or grazing them on a field
where their manure has been used
as fertilizer may lead animals to be
continually infected.27
In recent years, poultry lit-
ter—ground-up feces, feathers, bed-
ding, and spilled feed—has been fed
to cattle. That practice creates a cycle
that may infect those cattle with mad
cow disease, because chickens are
sometimes fed processed cattle prod-
An artist’s rendering of a prion, a small protein ucts—pulverized bone and meat.
molecule that wreaks havoc in the brain, causing
mad cow disease and the human equivalent, If that chicken feed is excreted or
variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. spilled onto the floor by poultry, it
may become part of cattle feed. The initial route through which mad cow
disease was spread was the feeding of processed cattle products to cattle. So
far, however, the cattle-chicken-cattle feeding cycle has not been proven to
spread the disease. (For more on mad cow disease, see appendix A, p. 174.)

Diseases Direct from Livestock to You
In addition to hosting foodborne pathogens, farm animals carry numerous
microbes that can infect people directly. An estimated 200 different diseases
can be transferred from animals to people, and that number is growing.28 Of
156 emerging diseases around the world, such as pfiesteria, hantavirus, and
West Nile virus, 73 percent inhabit animals for part of their life cycles.29
Microbes from livestock can also reach people through the environment.
Numerous pathogens—including antibiotic-resistant strains from livestock—
are found in the air, though their impact on surrounding communities is


unknown.30 The air inside one swine barn contained Staphylococcus, Pseu-
domonas, Bacillus, Listeria, and other bacteria at worrisome levels.31 Streams,
too, could infect swimmers, boaters, and fishers. More research is needed to
determine just how big a problem environmental contamination is.

The Most Threatening Animal-Borne Disease: Influenza
Influenza is the single biggest animal-borne threat, and public health offi-
cials around the globe are beginning to safeguard against possible pan-
demics. University of Minnesota professor Michael Osterholm warns: “Pan-
demics are not a question of [whether] they will happen. The question we
…
really have before us is how big, how bad, and when will it start.”32
Chickens, ducks, and pigs serve as major reservoirs for flu viruses.
Because pigs can become infected with both human and avian strains of
a given virus, the viruses may swap genes, creating a new harmful strain
to which humans may be susceptible. That process may be facilitated by
mixing pigs from different farms or regions—a common event at livestock
auctions or during shipping. Innocuous influenza viruses in wild birds
may infect poultry, where they could undergo mutations that enable them
to infect and kill humans. The gravest risk arises when flu viruses gain the
ability to spread directly from person
to person.33
Various gradually changing
strains of influenza virus are endemic
and cause annual nationwide out-
breaks in the United States. In an
average year, 10 to 20 percent of the
population gets the flu, with 114,000
requiring hospitalization and 36,000
dying.34 Of course, those figures are
dwarfed by the massive 1918–19 flu
Avian influenza virus A H5N1 (gold) is growing in
pandemic, which killed more people cultured cells (green).
faster than any disease ever.35 While
“only” 500,000 Americans died, some countries lost half their popula-
tions.36 Globally, as many as 50 million people died. That strain of flu
likely came from birds and then spread to humans. If a similar strain of
flu struck today, some experts estimate that 1.8 million Americans would
die.37
Poultry-related influenza outbreaks have been much in the headlines
in recent years. In 1997 in Hong Kong, a strain of avian influenza (“bird
flu”) H5N1 leapt from poultry to humans, infecting 18 people.38 Six people


Factory Farming’s Antibiotic Crutch
Food poisoning is bad enough when you’re infected with ordinary germs. But when
those germs are resistant to customary antibiotics, ordinary illnesses may become
life threatening. We’re courting disaster when we allow farmers to use penicillin,
erythromycin, and other important antibiotics for economic—not medical—
reasons.

Antibiotics, the first true miracle drugs, have saved countless lives over the past
half-century. But far greater quantities of antibiotics are used in farm animals than
in humans.39 The drugs are sometimes used to treat sick animals, but mostly they
are administered at low, non-therapeutic levels to whole flocks and herds to pro-
mote growth and counteract the dirty, crowded conditions in which most animals
are raised.

Antibiotic Use Breeds Resistance
Using low levels of antibiotics day in and day out on millions of animals greatly
increases the chances that bacteria—including those that cause foodborne ill-
nesses—will develop antibiotic resistance. The problem arises when a germ hap-
pens to mutate in one of several ways that reduces the antibiotic’s effectiveness.
The tougher new bacteria:

 pump the antibiotic out of their cells,
 degrade the antibiotic,
 change the antibiotic’s chemical structure, or
 modify target molecules to “fool” the antibiotic.

The antibiotic kills off all but the resistant germs, which then flourish. If people
are infected by those bacteria via contaminated food, they can suffer illnesses
that may only be cured by the newest, most powerful (and expensive) antibiotics.
Farmers and others in direct contact with livestock can also be infected by the
resistant bacteria.40

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recognized that “Antimicro-
bial resistance among foodborne bacteria, primarily Salmonella and Campylobacter,
may cause prolonged duration of illness, and increased rates of bacteremia (bac-
teria in the blood), hospitalization, and death.”41 Antibiotic-resistant Salmonella,
a common foodborne pathogen, causes at least 29,000 extra illnesses, 342 extra
hospitalizations, and 12 extra deaths per year.42 The ultimate danger is that bacteria
will develop resistance to all the common antibiotics and cause a deadly epidemic.

A 2001 U.S. Food and Drug Administration study of ground meat and poultry found
that 20 percent of the samples contained Salmonella, and over half of those bac-
teria were resistant to at least three important antibiotics.43 Even more alarming,
some strains of Salmonella and other foodborne pathogens were resistant to a


dozen different antibiotics. The livestock industry’s profligate use of antibiotics
almost certainly selects for those “superbugs.”44

In 1995, the FDA—over the objections of the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention—allowed chicken farmers to treat whole flocks with fluoroquinolones, a
family of powerful new antibiotics, even if only a few birds were sick. Predict-
ably, rates of resistance in Campylobacter quickly soared from virtually zero to
20 percent.45 That spurred the FDA, in 2000, to reverse course and propose barring
flock-wide use of fluoroquinolones.46 Two years later, the agency estimated that
fluoroquinolone-resistant infections were causing over 17,000 additional cases of
food poisoning, leading to 95 hospitalizations.47 Only two companies marketed the
antibiotics: Abbott Laboratories immediately stopped marketing its product, but
it took five years to overcome Bayer Corporation’s opposition and to stop farmers’
use of its similar drug.48

Growing Opposition to a Dangerous Practice
Livestock producers and the animal-drug industry insist that giving animals low
doses of antibiotics is safe.49 But public health experts counter that it is senseless
to endanger the effectiveness of vital human medicines—especially when they are
not essential to farmers. The American Medical Association, American Public Health
Association, and other health groups have opposed unnecessary uses of antibiotics
on farms. The American Academy of Pediatrics found that “children are at an increased
risk” from antibiotic-resistant infections rooted in non-therapeutic uses of antibiot-
ics in food-pro-
ducing animals.
And a study by
the Institute of
Medicine con-
cluded that the
“FDA should ban
the use of anti-
microbials for
growth promo-
tion in animals
Antibiotics are widely used in crowded, dirty animal facilities to prevent or if those classes
treat bacterial infections.
of antimicro-
bials are also used in humans.” The World Health Organization made a similar
plea. More than 300 local and national organizations, including the medical, public
health, and pediatrician organizations mentioned above, have supported legisla-
tion to limit the use of antibiotics in livestock.50

Industry maintains that antibiotics help healthy animals grow faster and at a lower
cost. But a committee of the National Academy of Sciences emphasized that the


“beneficial effects of subtherapeutic drug use are found to be greatest in poor
sanitary conditions.”51 Just as public health experts finally figured out that clean-
ing up the water and the air drastically reduced infectious diseases in people, so
agribusiness should look to use different approaches to prevent illnesses in their
animals. If they cleaned up their hog sheds, gave their chickens more room to
roam around, stopped feeding cattle an unnatural grain-rich diet, and bred ani-
mals not just to grow fast but to have strong immune systems, farmers could both
raise healthier animals and protect the effectiveness of precious antibiotics.

The European Union began phasing out the use of medically important antibiotics
in healthy animals in 1999 and banned that use completely on January 1, 2006.52
Denmark, the world’s largest exporter of pork, moved even faster. In 1998 it insti-
tuted a virtual ban (through a $2 tax on treated pigs) on using growth-promoting
antibiotics in pigs after weaning.53 In 2004, farmers were not using any antibiotics
to promote growth, though more antibiotics were being used to treat illnesses.
The total poundage used is dramatically lower than before the ban, and the preva-
lence of both resistant and nonresistant foodborne pathogens plummeted in hogs
and their meat.54 Moreover, Danish economists estimate that the cost of producing
pork will rise just 1 percent.55

Change is coming, if more slowly, in the United States.56 Tyson Foods, the nation’s
largest chicken producer, reduced its use of antibiotics by 93 percent between
1997 and 2004, and three other major companies say they have stopped using
antibiotics on healthy animals. The Iowa Pork Producers Association is now urging
“all Iowa pork producers to voluntarily discontinue use of all growth-promoting
antibiotics” in the feed of pigs that weigh more than about 50 pounds. And a rap-
idly growing number of organic livestock producers do not administer any drugs
at all (they treat sick animals, but then do not market them as organic). Probably
reflecting such developments, between 1999 and 2004 the volume of antibiotics
used in animals declined by 10 percent, despite a 5 percent increase in livestock
production.57 Unfortunately, there is no similar progress in the cattle industry.

died—a fatality rate of 33 percent. Hong Kong officials responded by order-
ing the slaughter of 1.4 million birds. Luckily, the disease did not spread
easily from person to person, so control measures were effective. Since 1997,
however, four more outbreaks of avian influenza have occurred in Hong
Kong, prompting the government to respond with such preventive measures
as poultry vaccinations and new restrictions on imported poultry. Between
2003 and 2006, bird flu spread to other parts of Asia and countries in Europe
and Africa. It has killed over 100 people and prompted the slaughter of more
than 150 million poultry, costing the industry billions of dollars.58
The CDC says that “The avian influenza … outbreak in Asia is not
expected to diminish significantly in the short term.”59 In 2004 in North


America, a milder strain of avian influenza emerged in Canada and Texas.
No human deaths were reported, although two poultry workers became
ill.60 Some 17 million chickens, turkeys, and ducks were culled to prevent the
virus from spreading. In 2006, veterinary and health experts in North Amer-
ica and elsewhere were bracing for a new round of infections. Tara O’Toole,
director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Center for Biosecu-
rity, speculated that a highly infectious bird flu virus could kill as many as 40
million Americans.61
While the most dire
predictions are likely
overblow n—pa r t ly
because mutations are
expected to weaken
the virus if it “learns”
to spread from person
to person—the pos-
sibility of epidemics is
enormously enhanced
by the widespread
In huge poultry sheds, germs from one bird can easily infect raising of large num-
thousands of other birds. bers of livestock.

Weak Safeguards Endanger Consumers
All of the problems mentioned above are exacerbated by the federal gov-
ernment’s incomplete and fragmented food-safety system. For starters, the
United States does not have a system that tracks animals and meat from
the farm to the slaughterhouse to the table. That prevents health officials
from tracing the cause of a food-poisoning outbreak back to the farm. Also,
the government cannot require food processors to recall products that are
suspected of causing outbreaks; instead, they must ask and negotiate with
companies—while people are getting sick. The USDA cannot fine compa-
nies for violating the law, and the FDA can only fine a company $1,000 and
threaten officials with a year in jail. Those agencies’ real power comes from
their authority to seize products on store shelves and generate bad public-
ity. As for imported foods, the USDA has the power to inspect foreign pro-
cessing plants, but the FDA does not.
Most of the responsibility for ensuring a safe food supply rests with the
USDA and the FDA, with almost a dozen other agencies playing smaller
roles. The USDA oversees the safety of meat, poultry, pasteurized eggs,
and processed foods containing meat or poultry, while the FDA oversees


everything else, including
produce, eggs in their shells,
seafood, and processed foods
that contain little or no meat or
poultry. That division creates
some bizarre situations. For
example, the USDA regulates
dehydrated chicken soup, but
the FDA oversees dehydrated
beef soup. Peculiarly, though,
the FDA regulates chicken
broth, but the USDA regulates
beef broth. (The government
is looking to correct that
particular bit of bureaucratic USDA microbiologists obtain samples for microbial
analysis from a washed carcass.
craziness.)
More importantly, federal funding priorities are misguided. CSPI’s
food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal emphasizes that while FDA-
regulated foods cause two-thirds of all outbreaks, the FDA receives only
38 percent of food-safety funding. As a result, that agency performs too
few inspections of the facilities it oversees. The USDA inspects meat and
poultry plants daily; the FDA inspects other operations only about once
every five years on average.62

What It All Means
Animal products cause many foodborne infections in the United States,
and livestock are the source of other infectious diseases, such as the flu,
that are spread by vehicles other than food. Sicknesses and deaths aside,
those illnesses generate enormous health-care and other costs. Some of the
production systems that animal agriculture uses promote the spread of
dangerous pathogens from animals to meat to humans and from animal
manure to fruits and vegetables. Industry is well aware of the food-safety
problem and has been attacking it with new technologies, ranging from
steam-treating and acid-washing beef carcasses to vaccinating poultry to
irradiating cuts of meat. Still, foodborne and farm animal–related illnesses
likely will never be eliminated totally. Meanwhile, the government’s food-
safety system, which includes programs that are perpetually underfunded
and riddled with holes, has proved inadequate in fulfilling its public health
mission. With a large percentage of foodborne illnesses caused by animal
products, one personal solution is obvious: eat fewer animal products—and
wash your fruits and vegetables.

Argument #3.
Better Soil

“Soybean production is killing us,” notes Larry
Gates of the Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
sources. Southeast Minnesota, which once boasted
clean rivers and streams, is increasingly inhospi-
table to healthy and diverse aquatic life—as well
as to the people who flocked to those waters to
fish and swim. Encouraged by Farm Bill incentives,
Minnesota farmers have been converting their pas-
tures and grasslands to soybean fields. That simple
switch has had a profound impact, as endless rows
of soybean plants have led to unprecedented lev-
els of erosion. Load upon load of sediment has been washed into the river.
As a result, brown trout populations, which had been rising for decades, are
declining to the point where hundreds of thousands of young trout will have
to be placed in the river if the population is to be maintained.1

P
roducing food animals, and the grains and soybeans that speed their
growth, takes a tremendous toll on farmland—particularly its pre-
cious topsoil. Growing crops for animal feed frequently erodes the

73


soil, as does overgrazing of grasses  Raising almost 100 million acres of
by livestock. Further, cattle’s constant feed crops for livestock production
trampling of vulnerable rangeland depletes topsoil of nutrients and
can almost irreparably damage the causes erosion.
environment. The immense quantities  About 22 billion pounds of fertilizer—
of fertilizers—including old-fashioned about half of all fertilizer applied in
manure, urban processed sewage the United States—are applied to
sludge, and conventional chemicals— lands used to grow feed grains for
and pesticides used to grow feed American livestock annually. The
energy needed to manufacture that
grains contain nutrients and toxins
fertilizer could provide a year’s
that disrupt the soil ecosystem, poison
worth of power for about 1 million
wildlife, and pollute local and far-off
Americans.
waterways.
 Livestock may damage the land they
Agriculture has an enormous
graze on by compacting the soil,
impact on soil and soil quality: Graz- making it difficult for the soil to
ing land and cropland are the second- absorb water.
and third-largest uses of land in the  Soil—and crops—can be contami-
United States (forests are the largest), nated with cadmium, lead, and
together accounting for just under other heavy metals in sewage sludge
half of America’s total acreage.2 In and chemical fertilizers.
contrast, urbanization and sprawl
affect only about 3 to 5 percent of the U.S. land area.3

Importance of Good Topsoil
Soil, along with water and sunlight, is one of the three fundamental ele-
ments of crop production. A thick layer of topsoil, rich in such nutrients
as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, absorbs and holds rainwater well
and provides the best environment for growing crops.
But topsoil can be lost, leached away by water or blown away by wind.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that almost 2 billion
tons of topsoil eroded from cropland in 2001.4 That’s a huge amount, but
represents a 40 percent decline since 1982. The main cause of erosion is the
lack of plants that hold the soil in place. Native meadow grasses, hay, and
small grains such as wheat help protect topsoil by providing a solid cover
over a field.5 Many large farms, however, plant livestock feed crops, such as
corn and soybeans, that are grown in rows and endanger topsoil since the
bare patches between each row are relatively susceptible to erosion. The
loss of topsoil reduces fertility,6 which increases the need for chemical fer-
tilizers. And the switch from healthy natural topsoil to artificial nutrients
leads to a whole host of problems—nutrient imbalances, runoff, and water
pollution—detailed later in this chapter.

Argument #3. Better Soil • 75

Livestock’s Demand on Soil
Feeding grain to livestock and then eating the livestock (or their eggs or
milk) needs a lot more land than just eating the grains themselves. Raising
livestock creates a huge demand for corn, soybeans, and a few other crops.
About 66 percent of U.S. grain ends up as livestock feed at home or abroad.7
While pigs and chickens consume a good share of that grain, cattle at feed-
lots are the biggest consumers, in part because they are the least efficient con-
verters of grain to meat. Outside the United States, livestock consume only 21
percent of total grain
production, with the
vast majority of grain
consumed directly
by people. But as
nations’ incomes rise,
so does their appetite
for pork, chicken, and
grain-fed beef.
Frequently, farm-
ers respond to the
huge demand for feed
grains by turning to
monocropping—rais-
ing single crops over
huge areas—or they
use limited rotations,
where two crops des-
tined for livestock feed
are raised in alternat- It’s much more efficient in terms of land, water, and other resources
ing years. About 16 for people to eat grains, such as the wheat grown on this Utah farm,
than for people to eat foods from animals that ate the grain.
percent of corn—over
12 million acres—is raised without any rotation at all, though the majority
of corn—59 percent—is rotated with soybeans.8 Meadow grasses and small
grains (such as wheat), both vital to the preservation of topsoil, are included
in only 8 percent of corn rotations, according to the USDA.9
Good soil health depends on several factors, including maintaining
nutrient and organic matter content and avoiding topsoil loss.10 Robust
crop variation—including seasons when land remains fallow altogether—is
critical to maintaining optimal soil health. Including soybeans in a rota-
tion helps maintain nutrient levels because soybeans and other legumes
can “fix” nitrogen (the process by which bacteria convert nitrogen from its


relatively inert gaseous form in the atmosphere into compounds useful
as nutrients, such as nitrate). However, soybeans, because they leave little
residue on the field after harvest, are even less protective of topsoil loss
than corn.11

Erosion
A typical acre of U.S. cropland loses 5 tons of soil each year.12 About 20 per-
cent of cropland—some 65 million acres—erodes at a rate that actually
decreases its productivity.13 The resulting nutrient losses and lowered yields
cost almost $10 billion per year (see table 1). And soil’s reduced water-hold-
ing capacity is not only costly (an estimated $3.2 billion per year) but self-
perpetuating. It increases the rate of further erosion because unabsorbed
water flows over the soil, with less water remaining for plants. Eroded soils
therefore likely need more irrigation than “healthy” land—but irrigation, in
turn, promotes more erosion.
The problems caused by cropland erosion extend well beyond the farm.
Soil carried away by wind creates dust and haze and causes respiratory ill-
nesses and property damage, which together cost over $14 billion per year.14
Impaired water quality, due to sediment damage from agricultural runoff,
accounts for about one-third of the cost of erosion. When soil is deposited
into water, the suspended particles block sunlight, impairing the growth of

Eroded Soil, Eroded Yields
Row crops such as corn and soybeans are vulnerable to erosion because of the
naked patches of land that lie between the rows. Some soil-building innovations,
such as planting cover crops after the main crop has been harvested,15 almost keep
pace with erosion, but they are not universally used.

Comparing cropland to other land uses demonstrates how damaging row-crop pro-
duction is to topsoil. Erosion reduces the productivity of more than 20 percent
of cropland. That compares to
only 6 percent of private pas-
tureland—or fewer than 8 mil-
lion acres.16 Because respon-
sibly grazed pastureland typi-
cally has limited exposed soil,
only about 1 ton of soil is lost
per acre of pasture per year,
in contrast to the 5 tons for
cropland.


Table 1. The cost of erosion on all U.S. cropland (2004 $)17
Cost per ton of Total cost per
Location Problem eroded topsoil year (billions)
Nutrient losses and reduced yields 5.16 9.8
Cropland
Reduced water-holding capacity 1.69 3.2
Impaired water quality 7.44 14.1
Offsite (off
Property damage 3.89 7.4
cropland)
Health effects from air pollution 3.72 7.1
Total $21.90 $41.6

aquatic plants and depriving animals that feed on them of food. Sediment
can also raise water temperatures, disrupting the habitats of aquatic spe-
cies. But perhaps the greatest harm is not from the soil itself, but from fertil-
izers and pesticides that attach to soil particles.18 The cost of water pollution
from erosion is estimated at $14 billion per year—and that doesn’t take into
account the health and environmental harm from runoff from agricultural
chemicals.19

“Erosion is one of those problems that nickels and dimes you to death: One rainstorm can wash away
1 millimeter of dirt. It doesn’t sound like much, but when you consider a hectare (2.5 acres), it would take 13
tons of topsoil—or 20 years if left to natural processes—to replace that loss.… Yet controlling soil erosion is
really quite simple: The soil can be protected with cover crops when the land is not being used to grow crops.”
—David Pimentel, professor of ecology, Cornell University20


Compaction
Compaction occurs when topsoil—particularly when it is wet—is subjected
to the intense weight of the heavy machinery farmers use to cultivate, plant,
and harvest fields and of large livestock such as cattle—though machin-
ery typically is the more damaging.21 Compaction makes soil too dense for
plant roots to penetrate easily, reducing the rates of plant growth and crop
yields.22 It also reduces soil’s ability to absorb water. The American Society
of Agricultural Engineers found that pasture grazed by cattle for 10 years
absorbs less than one-fifth as much water as ungrazed pasture.23 One con-
sequence of compaction is erosion, because water that is not absorbed runs
off, carrying topsoil with it.
Soil compaction is a major problem on western rangelands where cattle
congregate in the biologically rich areas along the banks of waterways or in
wetlands. That compaction reduces the capacity of those wetlands and soil
to hold water, which leads to greater flooding and inhibits the recharging
of water tables.
Compaction poses a different, but not a lesser, problem in the arid and
semiarid regions of the West. Few grasses, bushes, and other plants grow
on these lands. Instead, the main soil covering is an interconnected com-
munity—collectively referred to as microbiotic crust—of mosses, lichens,
and cyanobacteria. (This last is an unusual form of bacterium that uses
chlorophyll and other pigments to capture light for photosynthesis.) Crusts
help hold soil nutrients, control water absorption, and create a medium for
plant growth. Although tough enough to support life in some of the hottest,
driest climates in the United States, crusts are quite vulnerable to physical
disturbances. Because the crusts are only 1 to 4 millimeters thick (less than
one-sixth of an inch), compaction and grazing by cattle can easily destroy
them. And that destruction inevitably leads to erosion, water loss, and
harm to native plant species. Moreover, crust recovers extremely slowly.
Full regeneration takes 50 to 250 years, depending on the extent of damage,
according to government scientists.24

Another Problem: Exotics
Heavy grazing by livestock promotes the spread of exotic, invasive weeds. Those
plants provide less-suitable land cover and do not hold soil together as well as
native plants. Cattle contribute to the spread of such weeds in three ways:

 They graze on native species, ignoring exotic weeds, which can then proliferate.
 They spread the seeds of exotic plants.
 Trampling by animal hooves makes ideal seedbeds for exotic plants.25


New Practices Help, but More Help Is Needed
Over the past two decades, farmers have used various measures to better
conserve farmland. And that has paid off: In 1982, 3 billion tons of topsoil
eroded from cropland. By 1997, that figure was reduced by 40 percent to just
under 2 billion tons.26 But in some areas, soil losses remain well above lev-
els of sustainability.
Several factors account for the dramatic improvement in soil conser-
vation. For starters, the USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has
paid tens of thousands of farmers to idle their most erodible lands, thereby
dramatically improving soil health. The CRP idles about 35 million acres
of land.27 Only about 1 percent of CRP land, fewer than 1 million acres, is
eroding at an unsustainable rate.28, That success is impressive, particularly
since most of the land included in the program was experiencing serious
erosion. The CRP shows that even in extreme cases, strong (though expen-
sive) measures can protect the land.
Farmers also have reduced erosion by using conservation tillage or reduced
tillage on roughly half the nation’s cropland. That practice cuts back on plowing
and leaves crop residue (such as
cornstalks) on the ground after
harvest to prevent erosion.29
“No-till” agriculture, which
is facilitated by genetically
engineered herbicide-tolerant
soybean and corn varieties,
barely disturbs soil from plant-
ing to harvest time.30 Farmers
also have been planting buffer
strips or terracing land to help
No-till soybean crops minimize soil erosion.
reduce erosion.
Topsoil losses persist nonetheless. Reducing or eliminating the
need for corn, soybeans, wheat, and other grains for livestock feed—
especially for cattle—could further reduce erosion. In theory, ceasing

CRP land may be grazed or cut for hay under emergency conditions such as drought or
an animal feed shortage, but it otherwise remains fallow.

Though the vast majority of acres enrolled in the CRP are “highly erodible land,” other
lands are also enrolled to protect wildlife habitats and water quality and to address other
environmental problems. Inclusion of those acres lowers the average rate of erosion on CRP
land.
Wind erosion still occurs on about 420,000 acres of CRP land and water erosion on
365,000 acres, with some land experiencing both types of erosion. However, even if there
were no overlap, only 2.4 percent of all CRP land would experience erosion-induced produc-
tivity losses.


grain production for livestock
would allow close to 100 million
acres to lie fallow and revert to
natural grasslands and wood-
lands.31 That shift could save
as much as 700 million tons
of topsoil per year. In reality,
though, much of that land
would be used to grow crops
for export or for conversion
to gasohol, high-fructose corn Alternating strips of alfalfa with corn on the contour
helps reduce soil erosion on this Iowa farm.
syrup, and other products, and
some would be planted in crops that would replace some of the meat in our diet.

Effects of What We’re Putting on the Soil
Loss of topsoil decreases productivity, so to compensate for that farmers
add soil nutrients. That means applying fertilizer—and lots of it—in the
form of chemicals, manure, or treated sewage sludge.

Chemical Fertilizers
Fertilizer causes environmental problems primarily because farmers often
apply too much to their land. Because about half of all fertilizer applied
in the United States
is used solely for
raising feed grains
for animals, reduc-
ing that usage could
reduce environmental
degradation.32
Even when not
over-applied, nitrogen
fertilizer causes seri-
ous environmental
problems. That fertil-
izer is usually applied
as ammonium nitrate,
which can react with oxygen in the air and release ammonia. Ammonia can
damage local ecosystems, including the plant life on the fertilized land.33
When carried by wind and rain, the ammonia may be deposited in water-
ways and affect distant ecosystems (see “Ammonia,” p. 104, for further
details).


Fertilizer Used to Produce Meat, Poultry, Eggs, and Milk
Producing different animal products requires very different amounts of fertilizer.34
In all, 22 billion pounds of fertilizer are used per year.

Fertilizer nutrients used per year (billion pounds)
9
Fertilizer nutrients required per pound of food (pounds)
8 0.45
0.40
0.35
7 0.30
0.25
6 0.20
0.15
0.10
5 0.05
0
4 Pork Beef Chicken Eggs Milk

3

2

1

0
Pork Beef Chicken Eggs Milk

Notes: Inset chart is for cooked food, except for milk. Data exclude exported crops and food.

 Hogs are the least fertilizer-efficient of major farm animals, partly because,
unlike cattle, they eat grains their entire lives. It takes about a pound of fertil-
izer to produce 2½ pounds of cooked pork.
 Producing beef requires large amounts of fertilizer, in large part because cattle
are inefficient converters of feed to meat. One pound of fertilizer is needed to
produce 3 pounds of cooked beef.
 Chicken and egg production require less than half as much fertilizer per pound
as beef or pork.

When the oxygen content of soil is low, nitrogen fertilizer undergoes a
process called denitrification, which yields a variety of nitrogen-containing
gases, including nitrogen gas, nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (which are
together known as NOx,, since, in the presence of sunlight, they rapidly
interconvert), and nitrous oxide. The harmless nitrogen gas simply returns

The fact that oxygen-containing species are produced may seem strange considering
that the reaction takes place in the absence of oxygen. What actually happens is that in oxy-
gen-poor conditions, anaerobic bacteria strip the oxygen from nitrogen dioxide (which occurs
naturally in soil or is deposited by acid rain), releasing nitrogen gas and nitric oxide into


to the atmosphere. However, NOx destroys ozone, impairs lung function,
and contributes to fog and acid rain.35 It also travels even farther from its
source than ammonia.36 Nitrous oxide is a destructive greenhouse gas
300 times more potent than carbon dioxide (for more on this topic, see
“Nitrous Oxide” and “Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide,” pp. 107 and
108).37 Agriculture contributes about 37 percent of all nitrous oxide releases
in the United States, with much of that coming from fertilizer.
Besides polluting the air, fertilizers also increase the acidity of soil.38
That reduces the soil’s ability to hold nutrients and can permanently reduce
soil productivity. Acidification ordinarily is controlled by applying even
more chemicals, such as lime (calcium carbonate).

Heavy Metals in Chemical Fertilizer
The potash and phosphate ores used to produce chemical fertilizers fre-
quently contain heavy metals that may contaminate the soils on which they
are used. Those contaminants can be absorbed into the grains grown in
the soil, the livestock that consume those grains, and eventually the peo-
ple who consume the resulting meat and dairy products.39 The U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency recognizes that cadmium, lead, arsenic, zinc,
and other minerals sometimes contaminate fertilizer.40 With intensive
application of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium fertilizers, cadmium and
lead levels in soil can double in a dozen years.41 Liming materials, such as
sludge from water treatment facilities (see “‘Biosolids’ Fertilizer: Processed
Sludge,” p. 84), also contain a potpourri of heavy metals, including mer-
cury.42 So when liming materials are used to reduce the acidity of soil, they
also may pollute it.
A 1999 study of toxic waste in California by the nonprofit Environmen-
tal Working Group found that one in six samples of commercial fertilizers
exceeded the state’s criteria for what constitutes hazardous waste. Among
the heavy metals detected, lead and arsenic were present in the greatest
amounts.43
The concentrations of metals may be even greater in manure than in
chemical fertilizers, and transferring them to soil may lead to higher lev-
els in food crops.44 In fact, many poultry farmers add to feed an arsenic-
containing drug, roxarsone, to kill parasites that slow the animals’ growth.
The U.S. Geological Survey states that each year the poultry litter that is
spread onto nearby fields contains 2 million pounds of roxarsone and
“could result in localized arsenic pollution.”45 Johns Hopkins University

the atmosphere. Oxygen in the atmosphere readily recombines with those gases to produce
nitrous oxide and NOx.


Manure—Excess of Riches
In 2000, livestock in the United States produced about 3 trillion pounds46 of manure
(including feces, urine, and poultry litter). That’s 10 times as much as people pro-
duced.47 Cattle accounted for about three-fourths of the manure (see figure).48

In 1997, farms produced 1.5 bil-
Annual manure production (billion pounds)
lion pounds more manure nitrogen
2,500
and almost 1 billion pounds more
2,000
manure phosphorus than could be
1,500
used on fields.49 However, much
1,000
cattle manure is deposited harm-
500
lessly (or beneficially) on pasture- 0
land. Cattle Chicken Hogs
turkeys
Farmers typically deal with that
over-abundance of manure by spraying it on nearby fields as fertilizer. That adds
organic matter to soil, increasing the soil’s water-holding capacity and fertility.
It also spares the considerable resources needed to manufacture chemical fertil-
izers.50

But using manure as fertilizer has severe limitations. For starters, the nutrients
occur primarily in an organic form and are relatively unusable by plants, which
prefer inorganic nutrients. Also, manure may be difficult to collect, expensive
to store and transport, and not have the desired proportions of nutrients.51 The
University of Maryland Agricultural Extension Service states, “Typically if a farmer
uses manure to fulfill a crop’s nitrogen requirements, he is overfertilizing for
phosphorus and potassium. If manure is used to meet phosphorus or potassium
requirements, additional nitrogen will be required from other sources.”52 Also, the
release of nutrients from manure to the soil cannot be timed to match the needs
of plants, as it can with chemicals.

Faced with mountains of manure from
intensive feeding operations, research-
ers are exploring new solutions. Dried
manure can be burned as an energy
source, be added to aquaculture ponds
to induce algal growth (which would pro-
vide food for fish), or even be used as a
building material. Of course, one obvi-
ous way to reduce the 3–trillion-pound
annual load of animal manure would be to reduce animal populations and rely less
on cattle feedlots. Eating less meat, especially from animals raised in confine-
ment, would encourage farmers to do that.


researchers warn that “If animal waste were classified as hazardous waste,
it would be prohibited from land disposal based solely on its concentrations
of leachable arsenic.”53

“Biosolids” Fertilizer: Processed Sludge
To address their waste-disposal problems, cities sell treated sewage sludge—
biosolids—to farmers cheaply as fertilizer. Sixty percent of processed urban
sewage sludge—3.4 million tons per year—is now applied as fertilizer. In
theory, that approach is mutually beneficial, because it enables cities to dis-
pose of their waste, while providing farmers with affordable fertilizer. The
one problem—and it’s a significant one—is that sewage can be tainted with
industrial waste and pathogens.54 Government regulations are supposed to
restrict levels of heavy metals; volatile organic chemicals; and pathogenic
bacteria, viruses, and parasites.55 But the controls sometimes fail. In 2003,
hundreds of cows at Georgia dairy farms died after they ate hay grown on
fields fertilized by processed sewage sludge.56
Currently, fertilizer manufacturers are not required to disclose
heavy-metal content on product labels, so the full extent of the problem is
unknown. To date, only Washington and Texas limit heavy-metal contami-
nants (including those from industrial sludge) in fertilizer.57

Pesticides: Gauging the Health Risk
Large amounts of pesticides—and potentially dangerous (and misnamed)
inert chemicals included in pesticide products—continue to be applied to
soil, though the current volume is 40 percent less than was used in the late
1970s and early 1980s.58 Pesticides can unintentionally harm plants and ani-
mals; organisms living in the soil; and fish and other animals, plants, and
microorganisms in the waterways into which the chemicals are carried.
Because they adhere to particles in soil, pesticides can be carried long dis-
tances on dust and then tracked into homes and public spaces.
Glyphosate (marketed under the name Roundup) and atrazine are the
two most widely used herbicides, helping control weeds on millions of
acres of soybeans, corn, and other crops. Over 100 million pounds of those
two pesticides are used every year. Even though their half-lives are moder-
ate (between 30 and 100 days, depending on environmental conditions59),
significant residues still may be present in soil after a year.
Because of their widespread use, scientists have explored the possible
environmental and health effects of glyphosate and atrazine. Both have
been implicated in the decreases in amphibian populations seen in the
upper Midwest and elsewhere around the world. University of Pittsburgh


researchers have discovered
that a supposedly inert ingre-
dient in glyphosate endangers
amphibians.60 Rick Relyea and
two colleagues studied the
detergent (polyethoxylated tal-
lowamine) that helps glypho-
sate get into plant leaves. At
doses that are likely to occur
in nature, the detergent kills
tadpoles and frogs. Relyea
considers Roundup “extremely
lethal to amphibians.” The gray tree frog (on top) and American toad (on
Atrazine, used by most bottom) are both harmed by an ingredient in the
herbicide Roundup.
corn farmers, also affects
amphibians. Tyrone Hayes and his colleagues at the University of Califor-
nia at Berkeley exposed frogs to levels of atrazine lower than what is per-
mitted in drinking water and found that the herbicide caused gonadal and
limb abnormalities and hermaphroditism.61 Hayes uses the term “chemical
castration,” and says, “because the hormones that are being interfered with
occur in all vertebrates, maybe they’re telling us it’s just a matter of time”
before atrazine is found to harm humans.62
Pesticides eventually are broken down in the soil by microorganisms
or through chemical reactions, or they are carried into groundwater or
streams. Some of the harm they can cause there is discussed in “Pesticides
Wash Off of Farmland,” p. 100.

What It All Means
Healthy topsoil is crucial to producing crops, but modern agriculture has
placed extraordinary demands on cropland. The enormous quantities of
feed grains that farmers produce help satisfy our desire for inexpensive
meat and dairy products—but at great cost to topsoil, the environment, and
even human health. The row crops that stretch from one end of the horizon
to the other in many parts of the United States provide less anchorage for
topsoil, increasing erosion. The chemical and biosolids fertilizers applied to
farmland sometimes upset the balance of nutrients, as well as release into
the atmosphere gases that harm human health and the environment. And
the pesticides applied to the land and crops disrupt ecosystems, harm wild-
life, and—as discussed in “Risks from Pesticides,” p. 53—endanger farm-
workers and possibly consumers.

Argument #4.
More and Cleaner Water

Lake McConaughy, which receives most of its water from the North Platte
River, was once considered “Nebraska’s ocean” and was a haven for migrating
eagles and other birds. But times have changed. After years of heavy irriga-
tion by farmers raising animal feed grains such as soybeans and corn, fully
half the water the lake can hold has been lost, especially during dry summers.
Consequently, water supplies for hydroelectric power are on the wane, and
the Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, the lake’s owner,
is severely rationing water for farmers and ranchers. Although that might
help future conditions, irrigation has, in the words of local resident Ruth
Clark, taken “a beautiful, majestic lake and turned it into a mud hole.”1

R
aising livestock requires enormous amounts of water. Although the
United States is blessed with water
supplies far exceeding consumption,
water is not distributed evenly throughout
the country. In large swaths of the West,
demand from farmers who want to irrigate
their crops and the thirst of soaring urban
populations often outstrip the supply. Cities

87


such as Albuquerque, Denver, and  Agriculture uses about 80 percent of
Phoenix, all of which draw water all freshwater in the United States.
from the Colorado River, face  It takes about 1,000 gallons of irri-
water shortages and water-quality gation water to produce a quarter-
problems due to local farmers (who pound of animal protein.
were there first).2 Farms, especially  Half of all irrigation water is used to
those growing feed grains and raise livestock. About 14 trillion gal-
cotton and raising livestock, are lons annually water crops grown to
using up groundwater and surface feed U.S. livestock; another 1 trillion
water—permanently. At the same are used directly by livestock.
time, those farms cause soil erosion  The water used to irrigate just
and dump fertilizer, manure, alfalfa and hay—7 trillion gallons per
pesticides, and topsoil into nearby year—exceeds the irrigation needs
rivers and streams. The end result in of all the vegetables, berries, and
fruit orchards combined.
some places is water so polluted it is
unsafe to drink and uninhabitable  Farms pollute water with fertilizer,
pesticides, manure, antibiotics, and
by various aquatic animals.
eroded soil.

The Water Cost of Meat Production
Producing meat takes large amounts of water (see figure 1). The ani-
mals themselves need water to drink and to cool themselves, and farm-
ers need vastly greater amounts of irrigation water to grow the grains
and roughage that are fed to the animals. An average of about 1,000 gal-

Figure 1. Water used to produce various crops, chicken, and beef3

Gallons/pound
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
Potatoes Corn Wheat Alfalfa Sorghum Rice Soy- Chicken Beef
beans
Note: Crops are expressed in dry weights. Chicken and beef are adjusted to edible portion; our
adjustment assumes that 28 percent of beef cattle and 39 percent of chicken is edible. Figures
include water from rain and irrigation.

Argument #4. More and Cleaner Water • 89

lons of irrigation water are
Figure 2. Water consumption in the
needed to produce 1 pound United States, 19956
of animal protein (more for
beef, less for poultry). That Mining
Thermo-
irrigation water is supple- electric Commer-
1%
mented by larger amounts of 3%
cial
Livestock
rainwater, especially in big 3% 0.5%
Industrial
corn-growing states such as 4%
Illinois and Iowa.4 Domestic
Together, irrigating feed 5%
crops and raising livestock
consume over half of all Other Irrigation of
freshwater (see figure 2).5 In irrigation feed crops
27% for U.S. use
contrast, domestic uses—all
56%
showers taken, toilets flushed,
cars washed, glasses drunk,
and lawns watered—consume
less than one-tenth as much
water as agriculture. Total: 37 trillion gallons/year

Irreplaceable Groundwater Is Being Depleted
About 90 percent of U.S. water is renewable, coming from rain, lakes, and
rivers. The remainder largely is from nonrenewable underground aquifers
(groundwater).7 Agriculture accounts for about 80 percent of all freshwater
consumption in the United Sates and over 60 percent of groundwater
use.8,
Nationally, though many aquifers get recharged, the overall rate at
which water is removed from aquifers exceeds the rate of replenishment
by as much as 21 billion gallons per day.9 In the largest and perhaps most
severely depleted aquifer—the Ogallala, which underlies parts of Texas,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and
Wyoming—water levels are falling several inches per year.10 The Ogallala
Aquifer is 1,000 feet deep in some parts of Nebraska, but in some parts of
the Great Plains, it has dropped from 230 feet deep to only about 20 feet
over the past 25 years.11 The majority of water extracted from the Ogallala is
used to irrigate crops.12 Some farmers who depend on it may be facing high
prices or dry wells in coming years.

Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Geological Survey estimate water
usage, but they use different measuring techniques and report somewhat different amounts.
This chapter uses figures from both agencies as noted in the text and endnotes.


When an aquifer shrinks in coastal areas—including those with farms
nearby—saltwater replaces groundwater. That permanently diminishes
the aquifer’s value.13 Additionally, the loss of underlying groundwater
sometimes causes land subsidence, a sinking of the Earth’s surface. Land
subsidence has affected more than 17,000 square miles in 45 states—an
area twice the size of New Jersey.14 According to a 1991 estimate from the
National Research Council, land subsidence causes flooding and damage
to buildings, roads, and other structures, with the cost amounting to over
$125 million per year.15

Irrigation Water: Trillions of Gallons Wasted
American farmers irrigate about 56 million acres of land, or 88,000 square
miles.16 Some 23 million of those acres—an area the size of Indiana—are
devoted to crops destined for livestock feed.17 The most frequently irrigated
crops are feed corn (some is also used to produce ethanol fuel) and hay,
with another 4 to 5 million acres each being planted in soybeans; sorghum,
barley, and wheat; and cotton (cottonseed meal is used as livestock feed).
In stark contrast, vegetables,
vineyards, and fruit and nut- Figure 3. Irrigated area by crop type, 2000
(acres)19
tree orchards together occupy
only 7 million acres of irri-
Other Corn
gated land.18 (See figure 3.)
The amount of water 10.3 10.2
million million
devoted to irrigating alfalfa
and other hay—7 trillion Rice
3.1 million
gallons annually—exceeds 9.6
Sorghum, million
4.9 million
the irrigation needs of all barley,
vegetables, berries, and fruit wheat
5.2 All
orchards combined.20 million 7.0 hay
5.3 million
Of the roughly 28 trillion Soybeans million
gallons of water used for irriga- Orchards
Cotton
tion each year, about 14 trillion vegetables
are applied to the grains, oil-
seeds, pasture, and hay that are fed to livestock in the United States, and an
additional 3 trillion gallons are used to produce grains for food or export.21

Irrigation Methods Are Often Inefficient
Efficient irrigation methods could help preserve scarce water supplies, but
about half of the irrigated acres in the United States use wasteful systems.22
The least efficient ones either run water down furrows (trenches) or sim-


Level-basin flood irrigation is often used, as on this wheat field, where more-efficient drip irrigation
is not appropriate.

ply flood fields. Roughly 45 percent of irrigated acres rely on more efficient
systems, such as center-pivot sprinkler irrigation (creating those large cir-
cles that can be seen when flying over Nebraska and other Great Plains
states).23 But only 4 percent use highly efficient low-flow systems, such as
drip irrigation. Though more expensive than flooding systems, drip irriga-
tion can reduce water use by 30 to 70 percent and increase crop yields by
20 to 90 percent.24 Adopting better conservation practices and more efficient
technologies, which many farmers are now doing, could save tremendous
amounts of water.
The timing, as well as the method, of irrigation can waste water and
result in “waterlogging, increased soil salinity, erosion, and surface and
groundwater quality problems associated with nutrients, pesticides, and
pathogens,” according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).25 In
2003, only 8 percent of farmers who irrigated their crops measured the mois-
ture content of their plants or soil before irrigating.26 University of California
at Berkeley researchers found that the use of computer models enabled farm-
ers to use 13 percent less water and increase crop yields by 8 percent.27

Irrigation May Be a Bad Investment
Irrigated crops account for about one-half of all crop sales in the United
States, even though they are harvested from only one-sixth of all cropland.28


Subsidizing—and Wasting—Water
American taxpayers provide lavish funding for water projects, mostly benefiting
large-scale agriculture and meat-eating consumers. In 1988, the Congressional
Budget Office estimated that from 1902—when federal irrigation projects began—
through the 1980s, federal subsidies totaled between $34 billion and $70 billion.29
The World Resources Institute estimates that the federal government—taxpayers—
pays an average of 83 percent of the costs of irrigation projects.30

Taxpayers help farmers in two ways. First, tax dollars are used to build the sys-
tems, then farmers buy water from the projects at a fraction of the cost of pump-
ing or diverting the water. For example, the actual cost of water from the Central
Arizona Project, which in 1993 began diverting water for irrigation from the Colo-
rado River, is $209 per acre-foot—yet farmers in Arizona pay only $2 per acre-foot,
according to the Congressional Budget Office.31 Similarly, the full cost of delivering
water from the Central Utah Project is $400 per acre-foot, but farmers pay only
$8 per acre-foot.32 In a 2004 study of California water subsidies, the nonprofit Envi-
ronmental Working Group (EWG) found that American taxpayers are providing up
to $416 million per year for California’s Central Valley Project. On average, farmers
in the Central Valley pay about $17 per acre-foot of water. In stark contrast, Los
Angelenos pay about $925 per acre-foot for the water they use. Of the 6,800-plus
farms in the Central Valley Project, the top 341 largest were given access to about
half of the subsidized irrigation water.33 Those large farms have little incentive to
use the cheap irrigation water efficiently. According to EWG, California’s Central
Valley has long suffered a host of environmental problems due to over-irrigation,
including “devastation of fish and wildlife habitat and severe toxic pollution.”

Using irrigation to increase yields means that less land is required to meet
the same production goals (it also may contribute to over-production).
In the case of feed crops, the USDA estimates that 100 gallons of irriga-
tion water generates only a few cents in increased farm revenue—hardly a
great bargain.34 The same water could be used for more lucrative purposes.
For example, an irrigated acre of corn yields about 163 bushels, which in
2002 was worth about $383. In contrast, 1 irrigated acre could produce
about $2,400 worth of potatoes or $4,100 worth of apples.35 The nonprofit
Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that “a 60-acre alfalfa farm
using 240 acre-feet of water would generate approximately $60,000 in
sales. In contrast, a semiconductor plant using the same amount of water
would generate 5,000 times as much, or $300 million.”36, While a 60-acre
farm could employ as few as 2 workers, the semiconductor plant would

An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre of land to a depth of 1 foot.


employ about 2,000. In an analysis of water needs in Western states, the
Congressional Budget Office concluded that scarce water supplies should
be reallocated from agricultural practices to more economically productive
uses to improve what it termed “net social welfare.”37

Livestock’s Consumption of Water Is Huge—and Growing
Farm animals directly consume about 2.3 billion gallons of water per day,
or over 800 billion gallons per year. Another 200 billion gallons are used to
cool the animals and wash down their facilities, bringing the total to about
1 trillion gallons.38 That is twice as much water as is used by the 9 mil-
lion people in the New York City area.39 Although water use for livestock
accounts for a tiny share of national water consumption—about 0.5 per-

Cattle on this treeless, pondless California feedlot need a lot of water to beat the heat.

cent—it is the fastest-growing portion, both in terms of water to drink and
the “virtual” water used to grow grains, oilseeds, hay, and pasture.40 From
1990 to 1995, most categories of water (surface and ground) consumption
fell, but water for public use grew by 4 percent and water use for livestock
(including fish farming) grew by 13 percent.41 Combined with the grow-
ing number of livestock over the past 20 years, the increasing number of
large cattle feedlots and industrial hog farms may contribute to the ris-
ing demand for water.42 Hog farms use large volumes of water to prepare
manure for storage in huge lagoons (see “Manure Lagoons: Accidents Wait-
ing to Happen,” p. 94), and feedlots employ misting systems to cool cattle.
On traditional farms, in contrast, livestock might find shade or other natu-
ral ways to cool off.

Public use includes water withdrawn by public or private water suppliers to use for
home, commercial, industrial, or municipal (for example, firefighting and street cleaning)
purposes.


Manure Lagoons: Accidents Waiting to Happen
Manure lagoons are supposed to
provide safe storage. One maker
of lagoon liners advertises
“long-term durability, resis-
tance to weathering and low
maintenance … can withstand
normal environmental expo-
sure for well over 30 years.”43
But sometimes accidents hap-
pen. Then, tidal waves of foul-
smelling, bacteria-laden lique-
fied manure flood the land and
pollute the water. Just such an
environmental disaster hap-
pened in June 1995 when an
8–acre cesspool breached (due
partly to an unauthorized alter-
ation) and spilled 22 million gal-
lons of waste from the Ocean-
view Hog Farm into North Car-
olina’s New River Basin. That
was the state’s largest-ever spill. The waste poured onto nearby farmland, made
its way into the river, and robbed the water of much of its oxygen. Thousands of
fish were killed, and 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands were closed to shellfish-
ing.44

Upstate New York experienced the same kind of manure accident in August 2005
when, according to the Associated Press, “an earthen wall blew out, sending the
liquid into a drainage ditch and then into the [Black] River.” The “liquid” was
3 million gallons of dairy cow waste—a fish-killing “toxic tide” that was predicted
to reach Lake Ontario several days later.45

Modern Farming Practices Pollute Water
Irrigation water, pesticides, fertilizer, manure, drugs … they are all widely
used or produced on farms, and they often end up polluting nearby streams.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that “agricul-
ture generates pollutants that degrade aquatic life or interfere with public
use of 173,629 river miles (i.e., 25% of all river miles surveyed) and contrib-
utes to 70% of all water quality problems identified in rivers and streams.”46


The pollution, if great enough, kills fish and other aquatic life, prevents peo-
ple from swimming, reduces crop yields, and impairs drinking water.

Irrigation Leads to Erosion, Runoff, and Salinization
In addition to wasting water, irrigation can degrade the environment. Ero-
sion affects over 20 percent of America’s irrigated cropland. When furrows
are used to channel irrigation water, sediment runoff often exceeds 9 tons—
and sometimes even reaches 45 tons—per acre. Center-pivot sprinkler irri-
gation causes soil losses as high as 15 tons per acre. The financial cost of
replacing nutrients from lost soil runs into billions of dollars annually (see
“Erosion,” p. 76).47 In southern Idaho, for example, irrigation-induced ero-
sion has reduced overall crop-yield potential (the estimated seasonal maxi-
mum yield) by about 25 percent.48
Eroded soil pollutes waterways. The USDA considers sediment from
eroded soil to be the “largest contaminant of surface water by weight and
volume.”49 In addition, excess irrigation water may pick up contaminants and
carry them to rivers and streams. Those contaminants commonly include
pesticides and heavy metals (which can contaminate fish) and nutrients
from manure or fertil-
izer (which can lead
to algal blooms and
loss of oxygen).50 In
California, selenium—
which is a naturally
occurring element in
soil—was so highly
concentrated in irriga-
tion water runoff that
it caused an epidemic
of deformities in
migrating waterfowl,
These sibling stilt embryos show the effect of selenium including hatchlings
contamination. The embryo on the right came from an egg with
relatively low selenium content and is normal in outward appearance born with no eyes or
for this incubation stage. The embryo on the left came from an feet (see photo).51
egg with highly elevated selenium content and exhibits overall
stunting (compare the legs of the two embryos), lacks eyes, and has Water extracted
a malformed right foot. from lakes and
streams may contain pollutants, such as long-banned pesticides. When that
water is applied to farmland, some of it evaporates, leaving behind higher
concentrations of those pollutants. In other cases, pollutants settle at the
bottoms of streams and lakes, causing them to concentrate and degrade
water quality.52


Perhaps the most serious danger posed by irrigation to agriculture and
the environment is salinization. Water—especially surface water—naturally
contains salts. Irrigation water carries those salts onto cropland. When the
water evaporates, salts are left behind. Salt buildup can reduce crop yields,
and, in extreme cases, may force farmers to abandon once-fertile land.
Most estimates put the affected acreage at about 10 million acres, or almost
20 percent of all irrigated land.53

Fertilizers, Including Manure, Suffocate Water Life
Fertilizer is a critical contributor to modern agriculture’s extraordinary pro-
ductivity. The fertilizer industry suggests that if farmers stopped using fer-
tilizers, yields of some crops would drop by 30 to 50 percent.54 However, the
heavy use of fertilizers impairs water quality and harms aquatic life.
About half of the 21 million tons of fertilizer used annually in the United
States helps produce feed for America’s livestock (additional fertilizer is
used to grow feed that is exported).55 Corn, wheat, and soybeans—all major
animal-feed crops—are the first-, second-, and fourth-leading consumers of
fertilizer, respectively.56 Farmers treat cornfields with some 232 pounds of
fertilizer per acre.
Fertilizer runoff into U.S. waterways is steadily increasing. The industry’s
Potash and Phosphate Institute estimates that before North America was
settled by Europeans, nitrogen runoff into the Mississippi River Basin was
0.7 to 2.1 pounds per acre per year.57 Sediment studies found protozoa that
lived in the area from 1700 until 1900, but could not survive in low-oxygen
waters thereafter.58 That suggests that hypoxia was not a problem until
farmers began applying large amounts of fertilizers. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) estimates that the average level of nitrogen runoff is now
4 pounds per acre per year, with some areas discharging as much as 50
to 100 pounds.59 The concentration of dissolved nitrogen (and phosphorus)
in the Mississippi River has doubled over the past century, and each year
that enormous river discharges 1.8 million tons of nitrogen into the Gulf of
Mexico.60
According to the EPA, runoff from fertilizer and manure is the biggest
polluter of lakes and ponds and among the top five polluters of rivers and
streams.61 When those nutrients wash into waterways, they promote exces-
sive growth of aquatic plants and algae. That increased growth leads to
oxygen depletion and eutrophication, which occurs when the decomposi-
tion of vegetation absorbs almost all of the available oxygen in the water
(hypoxia). Aquatic species then either suffocate or, if they can swim, are
forced out of the affected area. As Drew Edmondson, attorney general of


Phosphate Mines Despoil Land, Air, and Water
Before phosphate can be used as fertilizer for feed grains and other crops, it
must be mined. Phosphate is strip-mined from near-surface deposits in Florida
and Idaho and turned into fertilizer, leaving rivers polluted and landscapes dot-
ted with 200-foot-high hills of slightly radioactive phospho-gypsum by-products.62
In Idaho, phosphate deposits are located within the greater Yellowstone ecosys-
tem, so mining there threatens the integrity of one of America’s most treasured
national parks. Indeed, two phosphate refineries in Idaho and one in Florida have
been condemned as Superfund sites, ranking them among the nation’s most con-
taminated spots.63

Phosphate rock typically is contaminated with heavy metals that are released
during the mining process.64 In Idaho, runoff from phosphate mining has polluted
nearby soil and streams with selenium. On one occasion, over 500 sheep died from
grazing on heavy-metal-laden grasses near mines, and signs by streams near min-
ing sites warn that the fish may be unsafe to eat.

Phosphate fertilizers—12 million tons of which are produced annually—are made
by treating phosphate rock with strong acids.65 Producing 1 ton of phosphate
takes almost 3 tons of sulfuric or phosphoric acid.66 Those highly corrosive chemi-
cals cause both air and water pollution. One such pollutant is hydrogen fluoride,
deemed hazardous under the 1990 Clean Air Act.67 Chronic exposure to hydrogen
fluoride weakens the skeleton, and high concentrations can irreparably damage
any tissue in the body. Many phosphate factories also produce phosphoric acid,
some of which escapes into the air, where it hovers as a mist that irritates mucous
membranes in the eyes, nose, and throat.68

Oklahoma, put it when he sued Tyson Foods and 13 other Arkansas poultry
companies for polluting local waters, “It’s nice to have green land. It’s not so
nice to have green rivers.”69
In 1974, scientists discovered that bottom-dwelling aquatic life could
not survive in parts of the Gulf of Mexico during the summer. In 1985, that
“dead zone”—which emerges each summer—covered about 3,100 square
miles. By 1999, the dead zone had doubled in area, and in 2002 it measured
8,500 square miles.70 That represents an area the size of New Jersey in which
aquatic life—including such commercially valuable species as the brown
shrimp—cannot survive.71 Shellfish, starfish, sea anemones, and most other
slow-moving animals died off 30 to 40 years ago, leaving the area to a few
species of worms.72
The dead zone is caused largely by agricultural fertilizer runoff from
Midwestern farms that ends up first in the Mississippi River and then


the Gulf. Nutrients from agriculture—two-thirds from fertilizer and one-
third from manure73—account for 80 percent of the nutrient loading in the
Mississippi.
Reducing nitrogen losses from agriculture would be the most cost-
effective way to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. The National Science
and Technology Council, which coordinates the federal government’s
science policy, estimated the cost of reducing nitrogen runoff from
agriculture at 40 cents
for each pound of
nitrogen kept out of
the Gulf. In contrast,
reducing the nitrogen
flows from industrial
and municipal “point”
(that is, definitively
identifiable) sources
would cost $5 to $50
per pound of nitrogen
removed.74
In December 2004,
This summertime satellite photo of the Gulf of Mexico shows where
decomposition of phytoplankton that had been fed by fertilizer Stanford University
created an oxygen-poor environment hostile to marine life—the researchers provided
“dead zone.” Reds and oranges indicate the most affected areas.
new evidence linking
fertilizer runoff to “massive blooms of marine algae in another region.”75
They used satellite imagery to study Mexico’s Yaqui River Valley—one of
that country’s most highly farmed areas. The valley is fertilized and irri-
gated in cycles over a six-month period, with waters draining into the Sea of
Cortez—a long stretch of ocean that separates the bulk of Mexico from the
peninsula of Baja California. The researchers saw algal blooms covering up
to 223 square miles of the sea. Those blooms appeared after each irrigation
cycle, suggesting that fertilizer from irrigation runoff was the culprit.

Manure Contaminates Water, but No Treatment Is Required
Before entering waterways, water polluted with human or other waste is
processed in accordance with EPA regulations, which set strict limits on
contaminants. This water—from pipes, ditches, and other easily identifi-
able sites—must be treated and purified, usually at a municipal water treat-
ment plant.76
In contrast, livestock manure is not regulated by any standards analo-
gous to those that control human waste, and farmers are not required to


treat it. Rainwater frequently carries manure downhill from pastures and
feedlots into waterways, and some manure leaches into the soil. The EPA
recently began to ameliorate the problem by requiring the largest fac-
tory farms to obtain permits under the National Pollution Discharge and
Elimination System rule—the same rule that governs major industrial and
municipal polluters. However, only the largest concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) with 1,000 or more cattle, 2,500 or more hogs, or 30,000 or
more broiler chickens are covered by the new rules. The EPA has estimated
that the new requirements will reduce nitrogen releases by 110 million
pounds and phosphorus releases by 56 million pounds—about a 25 percent
reduction in each.77 Although that is a good start, it still means that, at most,
20,000 of the more than 450,000 CAFOs in the country will have to obtain
permits.78 The remainder will continue to handle excess manure by storing
it in lagoons or holding tanks, or by spraying it on fields—all methods that
fail to protect public health and the environment adequately.

Where There’s Manure, There’s Ammonia
At concentrations greater than 2 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of water, ammo-
nia can kill aquatic life.79 Untreated human sewage has an ammonia concen-
tration of about 50 mg/l. Wastewater treatment plants must limit ammonia
in effluent to 4 mg/l in the winter and 1.5 mg/l in the summer. Yet concen-
trations of ammonia in raw livestock manure can exceed 10,000 mg/l. Con-
centrations in streams in rural Illinois, for example, range from 26 mg/l to
1,519 mg/l. Between 1985 and 1990, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency attributed 58 different fish kills—some of which destroyed entire
fish populations—to pollution from livestock wastes, though whether
ammonia was the primary cause is uncertain.
Ammonia releases from the growing number of factory farms are
affecting more and more watersheds. Expanded poultry production in
Delaware has increased ammonia releases by 60 percent. Delaware water
feeds into the Chesapeake Bay, which receives 81 percent of its ammonia
from livestock releases. In North Carolina, ammonia releases have doubled
over the past 20 years as hog production tripled.80
Ammonia (in the ionized form of ammonium) may be deposited into
waterways as it floats back to the Earth’s surface or is carried down in rain-
fall. Ammonium contributes primarily to air pollution, but also can acidify
water and increase algal blooms and eutrophication.81
Using too much manure on cropland may pollute waterways and
soil with dangerous bacteria and excess nutrients. In the upper Midwest,
20 feet of soil protect the water table, reducing the risk that contaminants


will reach that water. However, in large areas of North Carolina, the water
table lies just 3 feet below the ground, dramatically increasing the chances
of contamination.82

Pesticides Wash Off of Farmland
The USDA estimates that 5 percent of agricultural pesticides are washed
away from farmland through runoff, erosion, and leaching.83 That threat-
ens the safety of drinking water in many farming regions, where ground-
water supplies up to 95 percent of the water used for domestic purposes.84
In California’s heavily farmed San Joaquin-Tulare Basin, at least one pesti-
cide was found in 59 of 100 samples taken from groundwater wells.85 A 1998
USGS study found the herbicide atrazine in 38 percent of groundwater sam-
ples tested; groundwater is the source of most drinking water. Metolachlor
was found in 14 percent of groundwater samples.86 The pesticides only
occasionally exceeded drinking water standards, but because the USGS
found so many (39) different pesticides—the majority associated with live-
stock feed production—the cumulative effects of several pesticides acting
together might be causing unexpected kinds of harm. Moreover, for several
decades, pesticides have been accumulating in bodies of water larger than
those tested by the USGS. For example, Lake Superior now contains almost
80,000 pounds of atrazine. In 1991, over 540,000 pounds of atrazine washed
down the Mississippi River.87 Glyphosate, another widely used herbicide,
has been detected in about a third of all streams in the Midwest. Its degra-
dation product—aminomethylphosphonic acid—has been found in almost
70 percent of those streams.88

Antibiotics in Manure Contaminate Water
In 2002, the USGS found low levels of 22 different antibiotics in a national
survey of organic chemical contamination in 139 streams.89 Those crucial
medicines were the eighth-most commonly detected family of chemicals
in the survey (about the same as insecticides). The USGS study did not
determine the sources of the antibiotics, but presumably those found
downstream of livestock operations came mostly from agricultural
uses, while those found in urban areas came largely from human uses.
The presence of antibiotics in rural streams reflects the mountains of
antibiotic-laden manure produced each year and suggests that those
antibiotics could lead to resistance among all sorts of bacteria. It’s unclear
if that poses any risk to humans or wildlife, but prudence would indicate
the value of minimizing the drugs’ presence (see “Factory Farming’s
Antibiotic Crutch,” p. 68).


What It All Means
Extracting water for irrigation and livestock use is one of many areas in
which agriculture is exceeding the limits of sustainability and harming the
environment. In some parts of the country, groundwater supplies are being
gradually but inexorably and irreplaceably depleted. The ecological dam-
age from extensive and excessive irrigation includes soil erosion, fish and
bird poisonings, impaired fish habitats (threatening the very survival of
Coho and Chinook salmon throughout much of the Pacific Northwest), and
damage to roads and houses as the land below them sinks—mostly to raise
crops that generate only pennies for every 100 gallons of irrigation water.
In addition, the fertilizer and pesticides used to grow feed grains and other
crops, and the manure from the animals that eat the feed, pollute water all
the way from the farm to the nation’s great rivers and the oceans.
Reducing the number of animals raised for food and raising cattle on
rangeland instead of in feedlots are obvious ways to reduce water con-
sumption in the West and Great Plains. A complementary approach is to
use water in more sustainable and productive ways. Cutting back on meat
consumption would protect waterways from pollution caused by fertilizer
production, runoff from chemical fertilizer and manure, and soil erosion.
Of course, producing more fruits, vegetables, beans, and nuts still would
require water, but far less than is needed to produce animal products.

Argument #5.
Cleaner Air

In February 2001, two workers at a California dairy farm were ordered by
their foreman to climb into a manure storage pit to unclog a drainpipe. Soon
after descending into the 30-foot-deep pit, José Alatorre—standing in manure
up to his knees—began to complain that the air quality was poor. Moments
later, he attempted to climb out of the pit, but was overcome by the noxious
gases given off by the manure. Before losing consciousness, he called out for
help. When co-worker Enrique Araisa climbed down to help Alatorre, he too
succumbed to the gas. Both men drowned in the putrid, liquefied waste.1

H
alf a century ago, farms typically raised dozens—or at most, hun-
dreds—of chickens, pigs,
or cattle in their barnyards
and on their pastures. Today’s pro-
duction facilities—it’s hard to use
the word “farm”—are so large and
house such huge numbers of densely
packed livestock that they would
have been inconceivable to farmers
half a century ago. Consider: While

103


our population almost doubled  Manure and urine on factory farms
between 1950 and 2003, the amount release foul-smelling gases that can
of farmland fell by 22 percent to sicken humans and animals and harm
939 million acres, and the number of the environment.
farms plummeted by 63 percent to  Odors from large-scale livestock
2.1 million.2 At the same time, how- operations can cause drowsiness,
ever, red meat production more than headaches, and poor concentration
doubled to 47 billion pounds per in nearby residents.
year, and chicken production rock-  In 2000, methane belched out by
eted more than 20-fold to 41 billion cattle and generated by livestock
pounds annually. 3, manure had the same impact on
In short, far more animals are global warming as the carbon diox-
ide produced by about 33 million
being raised on far fewer farms.
automobiles.
One result is massive environmen-
tal harm, including air pollution.
Whereas problems from livestock and manure odors used to be relatively
rare, today’s high density of animals means that feces and urine from vast
herds and flocks stink up the air, afflicting anyone unfortunate enough to
live or work downwind.
Livestock excreta—including that stored in foul-smelling manure
“lagoons” larger than football fields—is only the most obvious form of air
pollution due to animal agriculture. The production and use of fertilizer to
nourish feed grains release toxic substances that despoil the atmosphere,
dust carries germs and risky chemicals, pesticides are blown far and wide,
cattle belch up great volumes of a greenhouse gas, and even milling grain
to make animal feed generates clouds of dust.

Factory Farms Emit Noxious Gases
Learning about the various air pollutants produced by today’s farms is
almost like taking a chemistry lesson. From the most harmful, ammonia, to
the most offensive, odor, a toxic cornucopia of chemicals harms everything
from human lungs to the Earth’s atmosphere (see figure 1).

Ammonia
Livestock are the largest source of ammonia releases on Earth. In the
United States, animal agriculture—especially from manure and fertil-
izer—accounts for about 82 percent of ammonia releases.4 Cattle waste is

The weight of meat or eggs produced, rather than the number of animals raised, is our
growth gauge, because not only are more animals being raised, but breeds of livestock gener-
ally have gotten bigger. Data for chicken are for 1950 and 2002.

Argument #5. Cleaner Air • 105

Figure 1. Animal agriculture is a major air polluter

SOURCES POLLUTANTS HARMS

Manure Methane Environment
global warming,
Ammonia acid rain, ozone
destruction,
Particulate smog, eutrophi-
matter cation
Fertilizer Volatic organic
production compounds Human health
respiratory
and use
(animal feed) Nitrous oxide, problems,
nitric oxide, Odors asphyxiation,
nitrogen dioxide headaches

Pesticides Carbon Animals
(animal feed) dioxide respiratory illnesses

responsible for 43 percent of that discharge, swine 11 percent, and poul-
try 27 percent. Most of the ammonia comes from feces, but urine adds to
the burden.
Applying manure to farmland allows large amounts of ammonia to
evaporate into the air.5 There, the ammonia reacts with sulfur- and nitro-
gen-containing gases. Those gases can cause respiratory and other health
problems, as well as contribute to smog and acid rain.6
Ammonia irritates mucous membranes in humans at concentrations of
about 10 parts per million (ppm).7 The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health recommends a maximum safe exposure of 25 ppm. While
a well-ventilated hog shed has concentrations of 10 to 20 ppm, sheds tend
to be poorly ventilated during the winter, and ammonia levels can reach
100 to 200 ppm. At those concentrations, farmworkers are likely to suffer
intense irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, throat, or lungs. The hogs, which
breathe the polluted air continuously, have an increased risk of pneumonia
and other respiratory illnesses.
The manure lagoons on industrialized hog farms release large amounts
of ammonia into the air.8 A study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA’s) James Zahn, an expert on factory-farm emissions, found that a
2‑acre swine manure pond produced more than 100 pounds of ammonia
per day on over 200 days in a single year. On one hot day, the Missouri
lagoon under study released 277 pounds of ammonia.9


British researchers
studied plant life near
a complex that housed
350,000 chickens. They
blamed the invisible
cloud of ammonia for
eliminating half of the
plant species found
near the chicken sheds.
The number of species
increased with the
distance from the live- Lagoons on hog farms, such as this one in Iowa, may use hillside
stock buildings. How- terraces to purify wastewater, but they still emit ammonia and
other air pollutants.
ever, the trees, grasses,
and mosses that survived had high concentrations of nitrogen in their tissue.
At four-tenths of a mile from the poultry houses—the farthest the scientists
examined—the nitrogen content of plants was twice the normal level.10
Because ammonia is highly water soluble, rain deposits airborne
ammonia onto land and into waterways. Once there, it can increase the
acidity of soil and water, decrease the productivity of forests and coastal
waters, and disrupt ecosystem biodiversity.11 Ammonia from chicken
houses has been deemed a “silent killer of the Chesapeake Bay,” the nation’s

The Effects of Air Pollution: Clouded in Uncertainty
Despite uncertainty over the exact amount of damage done by air pollutants gen-
erated by livestock, those compounds clearly harm humans, animals, and the envi-
ronment. The National Research Council identified ammonia and odor as “major”
concerns. Methane, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, hydrogen sulfide, and particulate
matter are “significant” concerns.12

Most of the research on the health effects of the gases emitted by feedlots and
other large, concentrated livestock operations has focused on brief exposures to
high concentrations. But residents living near factory farms are chronically exposed
to lower concentrations, the effects of which are harder to study. And the health
effects of certain types of emissions—most notably odor—have only begun to receive
serious attention.

Synergistic effects from individual pollutants may exacerbate the damage. For
example, chemical reactions between carbon monoxide and other pollutants—
nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds—produce ground-level ozone
(smog),13 which can cause asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and other illnesses.


largest—and once probably richest—estuary.14 Over the past 30 years, the
bay has been severely polluted by ammonia and other gases that evaporate
from manure at nearby chicken farms. On the Delmarva Peninsula, which
stretches along the eastern side of the bay, the leavings of almost 600 million
chickens grown on 2,100 farms release some 20,000 tons of ammonia each
year. In the summer of 2004, 27 percent of the nitrogen deposited into the
bay came from ammonia that had risen from surrounding farms into the
atmosphere and then drifted down into the water. Once in the water, the
ammonia contributes to algal blooms that deprive waterways—and their
aquatic life—of oxygen, a process called eutrophication.15
When asked about the odor around the bay, a local soybean farmer
lamented, “When the winds change, [the smell] can get so bad outside you
got to close the house up with all the windows shut.”16 The Chicago Tribune
observed that the “stench and noxious gases from large-scale livestock
farms … are tearing apart some rural communities.”17

Methane
Livestock—primarily cattle—generate methane, a greenhouse gas, when
they digest food and when bacteria digest manure. Cattle’s belching and flat-
ulence are responsible for 19 percent of all methane gas released in the United
States.18 Another 13 percent is released by anaerobic bacteria, which thrive in
the almost oxygen-free manure lagoons located mostly on hog farms.
At concentrations of 5 to 15 percent, odorless methane can asphyxiate
people.19 It causes occasional deaths across the United States, mostly among
farmworkers—such as the two mentioned at the beginning of this chapter
who were cleaning manure storage tanks.
Methane traps heat in the atmosphere—a process that is slowly raising
the Earth’s temperature and causing profound climatic and environmental
changes. On a pound-for-pound basis, methane is 23 times more conducive
to global warming than carbon dioxide.20 In 2000, livestock and manure
lagoons released an amount of methane that was equivalent in environ-
mental damage to the carbon dioxide from about 33 million automobiles.21

Nitrous Oxide
Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that is about 300 times more powerful
than carbon dioxide.22 About 25 percent of the nitrous oxide from animal
agriculture in the United States comes from bacteria that digest animal
waste.23 Nitrous oxide is produced by anaerobic soil bacteria when manure
or fertilizer is applied to land. Cattle waste accounts for over 90 percent of
the nitrous oxide derived from livestock manure.24


The only human-generated source of nitrous oxide larger than
animal waste is fertilizer applied to cropland. Because more fertilizer is
used for growing livestock feed than anything else, raising animals for
meat and dairy foods is the main driver of the two biggest sources of
nitrous oxide from human activities in the United States. Nitrous oxide
accounts for 6 percent of the greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere.25
When it migrates to the upper atmosphere, nitrous oxide catalyzes ozone-
destroying reactions.26

Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide
Another nitrogen-based air pollutant is nitric oxide. It comes mainly from
the burning of fossil fuels but is also produced when bacteria in the soil
digest nitrogen compounds. The nitrogen from livestock waste, cropland,
and fertilizer “feeds” those bacteria, accounting for 5 percent of the nitric
oxide generated by human activity. In Illinois, for example, over one-
quarter of the nitric oxide released comes from the many cornfields.27 Farm
equipment also contributes to emissions through fossil fuel combustion.28
Sunlight converts nitric oxide into nitrogen dioxide. Those two com-
pounds, which are referred to collectively as nitrogen oxides, or NOx,
can degrade the environment in several ways, including increasing

Making Fertilizer, Making Pollution
Natural gas is made into ammonia, which is then used directly as a fertilizer or
used to produce urea and ammonium nitrate fertilizers. Nitrogen fertilizer fac-
tories discharge ammonia and nitric acid into the air.29 They also release carbon
monoxide, a greenhouse gas; fine particulate matter that can clog capillaries in
the lungs and cause respiratory infections; sulfur dioxide, which readily converts
into sulfuric acid and contributes to acid
rain; and nitrogen compounds that con- Conversion Fact
tribute to acid rain, global warming, and
The amount of energy used annu-
ozone depletion.30 Worldwide, fertilizer
ally to produce the 22 billion
production generates 1 percent of all
pounds of fertilizer used to grow
greenhouse gases.31
animal feed in the United States
The lower ozone levels expose humans could support roughly 1 million
to higher levels of ultraviolet rays. people for one year.32
Meanwhile, the acid rain degrades for-
ests, lakes, and streams. The gases that cause acid rain also form fine sulfate
and nitrate particles that increase the risk of heart and lung disorders, including
asthma and bronchitis.


ozone levels in the lower atmosphere. According to Vaclav Smil, a global-
ecosystems expert at the University of Manitoba, ozone “impairs lung func-
tion, injures cells, limits the capacity for work and exercise, and lowers the
resistance to bacterial infections.”33 NOx also can form nitric acid or increase
airborne particulate matter, contributing to both smog and acid rain. Once
deposited onto land, NOx increases the acidity of soil and decreases bio-
diversity, including of plant life.34 Deposited in water, NOx increases the
acidity and promotes eutrophication.

Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide, another invisible gas released by intensive animal agri-
culture, is the gas with the distinctive “rotten egg” smell. It is produced
by anaerobic bacteria in animal manure stored under moist conditions.
Liquefying the waste—as is often done on factory farms—exacerbates the
problem.35
Nationally, the amount of hydrogen sulfide generated from livestock
manure is small, but at the local level, the gas can be a serious problem.
Even a concentration as low as 2 ppm can cause headaches. Slightly higher
levels can cause respiratory, cardiovascular, and metabolic problems. When
swine waste is agitated—which occurs when storage tanks are drained—
hydrogen sulfide concentrations near the tanks can reach 200 to 1,500 ppm
and seriously harm human health.36
As with methane, hydrogen sulfide Toxicity of Hydrogen Sulfide37
vapors have killed farmworkers in  2 ppm: headaches
and around manure storage tanks.
 2–10 ppm: respiratory, cardiovascular,
The National Institute for Occupa-
and metabolic problems
tional Safety and Health recom-
 50–100 ppm: vomiting and diarrhea
mends that exposure levels be kept
below 10 ppm and that individuals  200 ppm: immunological problems
evacuate if levels exceed 50 ppm.  500 ppm: loss of consciousness
An Ohio man suffered memory  600 ppm: often fatal
losses, poor balance, a stutter, and
other symptoms that his doctor blamed on a large hog farm half a mile
from his house.38 The doctor pinpointed high levels of hydrogen sulfide as
the culprit, but other gases also could have been involved. “If I could sell the
house, I would move in a second, but I don’t know where to go,” the man
told the New York Times.
Hydrogen sulfide also harms animals. Factory farms commonly use
slatted concrete floors to drain manure into storage tanks directly below the
animals. That practice is most common on hog farms, but is also sometimes


used with cattle. Spending their lives above a pit full of liquefied manure
continuously exposes the animals to hydrogen sulfide and other harmful
gases. Hogs exposed continuously to just 20 ppm of hydrogen sulfide become
anxious and afraid of light.39 Animals have died when they breathed the
higher levels of hydrogen sulfide that occur when waste is agitated.40

Volatile Organic Compounds
A broad array of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) form and then pollute
the air when manure breaks down. Those chemicals have a carbon back-
bone, which is coupled with hydrogen, oxygen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine,
sulfur, or nitrogen. VOCs from factory farms include organic sulfides, alde-
hydes, amines, and fatty acids.41
VOCs may irritate the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. They can be trans-
ported by nerve cells directly to the brain, thus affecting the central nervous
system. VOCs absorbed by the lungs, digestive tract, and skin can affect
metabolic and physiological processes. If inhaled, VOCs can increase the
risk of respiratory infections, such as pneumonia, and might weaken the
overall immune system.42 In addition, they contribute to the formation of
smog and exacerbate the greenhouse effect. Regulatory agencies have not
yet set exposure limits.43

Odor
Odor is the most readily perceived environmental problem caused by large-
scale animal farming. Although odor is downplayed by some economists
as only a minor nuisance that might reduce neighbors’ property values,44 it
may have serious health consequences that we are only now beginning to
understand.
Livestock operations generate a cafeteria of odoriferous chemicals,
including ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and VOCs. One study found 331
distinct odor-causing compounds in hog manure.45
Odors from factory farms irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. They
also cause headaches, drowsiness, allergic reactions, breathing difficul-
ties, and higher incidences of diarrhea. In one study, stench—euphemis-
tically termed “malodor”—was associated with an immunosuppressive
effect that increases the risk of disease and infection in both humans and
animals.46
Besides causing physical problems, odors have a profound effect on
mood and performance. One study found that “persons living near … in-
tensive swine operations who experienced the odors had significantly more
tension, more depression, more anger, less vigor, more fatigue, and more
confusion” than people living farther away.47


Football field-sized mountains of cattle manure stink up the neighborhood and endanger nearby streams.

Particulate Matter
Intensive animal agriculture generates immense amounts of “particulate
matter” that comes primarily from animal hair, dried manure, and dan-
der (small flakes of skin, feathers, or hair). The fine dust is easily scattered
by wind and animal movement. The problems it causes are most severe
around cattle feedlots because the ground—unlike pasture—is bare and
exposed to the wind.
The health effects of particulate matter depend, in part, on its size.
Particulate matter typically is divided into two categories: PM2.5, which
includes all particles smaller than 2.5 microns; and PM10, which includes
everything smaller than 10 microns. Both categories cause environmental
and health problems, but PM2.5 is a greater threat because the particles’
small size allows them to penetrate even the tiniest airways in the lungs
and cause respiratory illness and infection.48 Moreover, the dander in par-
ticulate matter causes some people to develop asthma or allergies to cattle,
hogs, or sheep.
Particulate matter produced on farms may carry viruses, bacteria, and
fungi, as well as traces of the antibiotics added to animal feed. One study of
the air in a large pig-feeding operation found bacteria, some of which were
resistant to several antibiotics typically given to hogs.49 Whether one could
become infected upon breathing the air depends on the concentration of the
bacteria. In addition, the antibiotics themselves have been discovered in the
air and could conceivably cause allergic reactions.50
On the environmental front, the particulate matter sent airborne from
feedlots and farms can react with ozone, generating the low-hanging clouds

A micron is one-thousandth of a millimeter.


Pesticides in the Air
Farmers intend for their pesticides to do their handiwork on crops or soil, but
when the chemicals are sprayed, some amount inevitably drifts away with air cur-
rents. Also, pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from the field. Through those
two processes, as much as 40 to 60 percent of the pesticides applied to crops may
reach the Earth’s atmosphere.51
The pesticides eventually come
back to Earth—primarily in rain-
fall—far from where they were
applied. Traces of atrazine—the
second-most widely used her-
bicide on feed grains—occurred
in 30 percent of the rainfall
samples tested in Midwestern
and Northeastern states. Meto-
lachlor—the fourth-most com-
monly used herbicide on feed
grains—was found in 13 percent of the samples.52 About 250,000 pounds of atra-
zine were deposited by rain into the Mississippi and Ohio River Basins in 1991
alone. Whether the small amounts of pesticides that are blown far from farmers’
fields pose any subtle health risks to people or wildlife is not known.

of pollution that once were associated only with urban and industrial areas.53
As one startling example, California’s San Joaquin Valley, home to one-fifth
of America’s dairy cows, now competes with Los Angeles and Houston for
having the most polluted air in the country. A Sierra Club spokesperson
told the Washington Post, “It’s not just a stink that’s coming out of these
farms. It’s a real health threat.”54

What It All Means
Factory farms produce toxic gases, noxious odors, and particulate matter
that make life on the farms and downwind miserable—and unhealthy. The
damage from the pollution generated by these operations extends even up
to the Earth’s atmosphere. Those ills and the welcome trend toward sus-
tainable agriculture notwithstanding, we will never totally return to the
less-intensive, less-destructive, but also less-efficient, agricultural practices
of yesteryear. While industry and government fight over more protective
regulations, one simple step each of us could take is to eat fewer animal
products, especially from factory-raised animals. That would reduce the
number of livestock and the amount of air pollution they generate.

Argument #6.
Less Animal Suffering

“Our inhumane treatment of livestock is
becoming widespread and more and more
barbaric.… Texas beef company, with 22 ci-
A
tations for cruelty to animals, was found chop-
ping the hooves off live cattle.… Secret videos
from an Iowa pork plant show hogs squealing
and kicking as they are being lowered into the
boiling water that will soften … the bristles
on the hogs and make them easier to skin.… Barbaric treatment of helpless,
defenseless creatures must not be tolerated even if these animals are being
raised for food.… Such insensitivity is insidious and can spread and is danger-
ous. Life must be respected and dealt with humanely in a civilized society.”
—U.S. Senator Robert Byrd1

M
any animals die to please our palette. About 140 million cattle,
pigs, and sheep are slaughtered annually in the United States—
about half an animal for every man, woman, and child (see
table 1). Add to that 9 billion chickens and turkeys—30 birds for every
2

American—plus millions of fish, shellfish, and other sea creatures.3

113


The American Meat Institute  Industrially farmed chickens are
contends that “Animal handling in raised in enormous and crowded
meat plants has never been better.”4 sheds, may never see the outdoors,
That might well be true, but “never and exhibit abnormal behavior. Layer
been better” falls far short of “good.” hens live in tiny cages, are debeaked,
There’s no easy way to know and are periodically starved to maxi-
what constitutes happiness or con- mize egg production.

tentment or pain for a pig, a cow, or a  The unnatural high-grain diets of
chicken. We can anthropomorphize
5 cattle in feedlots sometimes cause
liver, hoof, and digestive diseases.
livestock, imagining how it would
feel to undergo some of the same  Pregnant and nursing pigs spend most
experiences: having our teeth pulled of their time in pens so small they
cannot even turn around in them.
or being castrated without anesthe-
sia, for example. And in many cases,  U.S. farm animals are not legally pro-
tected as are laboratory animals.
the pain an animal is experiencing
is perfectly obvious. However, that
approach is considered by some to be too subjective to establish the effects
of such practices on animals. New tests are being developed that use the
behavioral and biochemical markers of stress to evaluate farm animal
welfare. Because the European, but not the American, legal system treats
livestock as sentient, conscious creatures, the majority of that research is
taking place abroad.
Food animals are not protected by federal animal welfare laws.6 In
fact, farm animals are specifically exempted from the laws that protect rats,
mice, and other laboratory animals.
Table 1. Food animals slaughtered While more than 30 states have live-
in the United States, 20037 stock anti-cruelty laws, they typically
Animal Number exempt “common” or “customary”
Sheep 2,900,000
practices. Therefore, painful proce-
Ducks 26,000,000
dures—such as when animals’ beaks,
horns, tails, or testes are chopped
Cattle/calves 33,800,000
off—are legal because most farmers
Hogs 104,000,000
use them. As Matthew Scully argues
Turkeys 254,000,000
in his book Dominion: The Power of
Chickens 8,900,000,000
Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the
Total 9,320,000,000
Call to Mercy, “When the law sets bil-
lions of creatures apart from the basic
standards elsewhere governing the treatment of animals, when the law
denies in effect that they are animals at all, that is not neutrality. That is
falsehood, and license for cruelty.”8

Argument #6. Less Animal Suffering • 115

“Bycatch”: Bye Animals
In addition to the land and sea animals intentionally raised or caught for food,
millions more die unintentionally as farmers and fishers seek to satisfy our appe-
tites:

 Billions of pounds of commercially useless fish, turtles, and other sea animals
are unintentionally caught as “bycatch” and discarded, already dead or dying.
 Wildlife is poisoned by the pesticides applied to crops.
 Farm animals die of injuries or illnesses before they reach the slaughterhouse.
 The egg industry literally shreds millions of male chicks at birth.

In such a lax regulatory environment, agricultural practices that many
people consider brutal have become the norm. From birth to death, many
animals never see the outdoors. They are caged or otherwise housed in
cramped conditions where they sit in their own excrement. That sort of
husbandry produces unnatural repetitive behaviors called “stereotypies”
that may result in injury to the animals themselves or to nearby animals.
Most cattle are fed grain-based diets that may cause ulcers in their stomachs
and suffocating gases. Near the end of their short and often miserable lives,
livestock are crammed into crowded trucks lacking food and water and
transported to slaughterhouses where they sometimes suffer painful deaths.
It is worth recognizing that many seemingly inappropriate or down-
right inhumane practices have some practical benefits to the animals or
the farmers or they wouldn’t be done. For instance, indoor confinement of
chickens, turkeys, and pigs, while unnatural and sometimes unhealthy,
protects the animals from predators, deadly germs such as the avian influ-
enza virus, and harsh weather. The questions are whether those benefits
are so great that they outweigh the harm done to the animals and whether
alternative methods could reduce animal suffering.

Farm Animals’ Unnatural Lives
Separated Early from Their Mothers
The dairy industry obviously has little use for males, so they typically are
transferred into veal or beef production systems. Calves are often separated
from their mothers within one day of their birth—before they can walk
and before they have received from their mothers’ milk essential proteins
for growth and immunity to germs.9 The day of separation is traumatic for
both mother and offspring, with each bawling for the other.


Early removal
from their mothers
and subsequent iso-
lation reduce calves’
ability to develop
normal social behav-
iors and contribute to
the development of
abnormal behaviors.
Because they are fed
from a bucket rather
than nursing at teats,
weaned calves miss the opportunity to satisfy an instinctive desire for
suckling.10 That thwarted desire leads calves to lick themselves and other
animals obsessively, which results in rumen hairballs. Those hairballs can
weigh as much as 8 pounds and occasionally harm the animals.11 Calves
also may try to nurse on each other or induce urination by licking each oth-
ers’ genitalia and then drinking the urine.12

Stamped as Property
Beef cattle—especially out West—are often “branded” with a logo indicat-
ing their ownership. Branding has been used by ranchers for generations
and has deep cultural resonance, if limited utility. Depending on its age
at the time of branding, the animal is either pinned on the ground or con-
strained in a chute. The brand is then impressed into its hide using a blaz-
ing hot iron, which creates a third-degree burn; that painful process may be
repeated when animals are sold to different owners.13 Many more humane
alternatives for animal identification exist, such as ear tags or retinal imag-
ing, which should consign this outmoded practice to the history books.
Furthermore, the threat of mad cow disease highlights the importance of
instituting a national system for livestock tracking. Branding is practically
useless for that purpose because of its limited information content.

Inconvenient Parts Removed
Castration
Nearly all bulls are castrated, which involves removing their testicles. The
most common methods are slitting the scrotum and removing the testi-
cles, blocking the circulation of blood to the scrotal sack with a tight rubber
band, breaking the spermatic cord with pliers, or injecting the testicles with
an acid or other chemical.14 All are performed without painkillers.


Most calves are castrated when they are less than a month old. Some
argue that young animals feel less pain, but Bernard Rollin, a prominent
animal welfare expert at Colorado State University, says there are “no good
grounds for believing that pain experience is tied to age. It is well-known
that cattle are born precocious, and it would be biologically and evolution-
arily incredible that all faculties are formed at birth except pain capacity.” In
fact, inflicting pain on young animals may lead to chronic pain later in life.15
Castration does offer several benefits. It makes steers more docile, which
keeps them from injuring one another in crowded feedlots. It also improves
meat tenderness, primarily by increasing the fat content. However, castra-
tion is not a unique way to obtain those benefits. Giving cattle more space
decreases aggression, too.16 And tenderness is not an issue with meat from
younger bulls and can be improved by aging meat from older bulls.
Cattle that are not castrated have their own virtues. They are more effi-
cient at converting feed to weight gain and therefore reach market weight
faster.17 That means they consume less grain, saving money and natural
resources. Cattle ranchers compensate for the slower growth of steers by
implanting hormone pellets in their ears to replace those naturally pro-
duced by the testicles (see “Sex Hormones on Ranches,” p. 131).
Ultimately, it is economics that spurs ranchers to castrate their bull calves.
Packers pay less for bulls than for steers, ostensibly because consumers prefer
the fattier steer meat. Yet some “boutique” beef producers specialize in bull
meat because of a niche demand for its lower fat content. Meatpacking compa-
nies, which largely are
responsible for deter-
mining what price
producers will receive,
can identify bull and
steer carcasses because
U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
inspectors—despite
the absence of any
regulatory require-
ments—prominently
stamp carcasses from Branding with a hot iron can be replaced with less painful practices.
uncastrated males as “bullock.”18 The bullock stamp essentially punishes
ranchers who avoid causing pain to their animals and deliver a leaner,
healthier product to consumers.

Bulls are uncastrated cattle; steers are castrated.


Dehorning
The major breeds of dairy cattle grow horns, as do some beef cattle breeds.
Horned cattle are still raised because other breeding priorities—rapid
weight gain or robust milk production, for example—have trumped the
desire to breed the horns out of the cattle.19 To prevent crowded, stressed
animals from injuring each other or their handlers, dairy cattle are
dehorned at an early age.20 The nascent horn is gouged out, cut off, or
burned with either a hot iron or chemicals. Although horns are commonly
thought of as woody protuberances devoid of sensation, they are actually
more similar to teeth—their hard shell covers a rich vascular and nervous
network. Dehorning can be extremely painful and may cause extensive
bleeding. As with castration, calves typically are not given painkillers
when they are dehorned.

Tail Docking
Removing the tails of dairy cattle—another terribly painful procedure—
has become increasingly common. Cows’ tails often become coated with
dirt and excrement, so when they swish their tails to chase off flies, they
fling about whatever filth has accumulated on them. Some dairy produc-
ers believe that tail swishing increases the risk of mastitis, a painful bac-
terial infection of the udder, because manure could land on a cow’s udder.
Another argument for tail docking is that tails may be trampled on by other
animals, causing lesions and infections.
Professor Rollin argues that there is “absolutely no scientific basis for
claims about the benefits of tail-docking. Removing the tail is another
…
example of attempting to handle a problem of human management by
mutilating the animal.”21 Instead of docking tails to prevent mastitis, farm-
ers should clean up dirty stalls. The trampling problem could be avoided
by giving the cows more space.22 All in all, we suspect that American cows
would much prefer to live in Sweden, where tail docking is forbidden, local
anesthesia or a sedative must be used for dehorning, and cows must be kept
on pasture for at least two to four months out of the year.23

Cows  Farmers
Lost in the industrial dairy system is the bond between cows and the farmers who
care for them. Research has demonstrated that dairy farmers who relate well to
their animals get higher yields.24 Industrial agriculture, however, increases the
number of animals per handler, which reduces the interaction between animals
and farmers.


Debeaking, Detoeing, and Maceration
Because of the economic losses associated with feather pecking, egg farm-
ers routinely trim off the tips of birds’ beaks. Debeaking (see photo) causes
both acute and chronic
pain, including pain dur-
ing eating.25 To prevent
sometimes serious injury
during fights, poultry are
often detoed.26
Treatment of male
chicks is even more gro-
tesque. Because the egg
industry has no use for
those birds, they are sum-
marily killed. The current
method of choice is to dispose of the birds in what is effectively a modi-
fied wood chipper. Industry parlance describes this as “instant maceration
using a specially designed high-speed grinder.” Other methods of disposal,
considered less humane, include suffocation and crushing.27

Confinement in Tight, Unhealthy Quarters
Cattle
Dairy farmers increasingly keep their cows indoors, confined in accor-
dance with industry recommendations of about 20 to 25 square feet per
1,000 pounds of animal.28 To put that space into perspective, the tiniest car
on U.S. roads—the Mini Cooper—occupies about 75 square feet. Its “foot-
print” would accommodate three adult cows with some room to spare.29
Beef cattle are simi-
larly confined dur-
ing the last several
months of their lives,
albeit in outdoor
feedlots. Those usu-
ally give the animals
more space than their
milked counterparts,
but the cattle are lim-
ited to only a grass-
less field of manure
Dairy cows, once pasture-raised on small farms, increasingly are
instead of pasture. being raised in confinement on mega-farms.


Pigs
Pigs generally are considered to be the most intelligent of the major live-
stock species, which makes their suffering especially inhumane.30 Unlike
beef cattle, which typically are raised on pasture for most of their lives, pigs
may spend their entire existence in an individual pen or in a limited space
with a small number of other pigs. Gestation crates are used for pregnant
sows and farrowing crates for sows that have just given birth. The main dif-
ference is that farrowing crates have a side area where the newborn piglets
can fit. Those pens usually are only about seven feet by two feet. According
to Alberta Pork, a pork producers’ association in Canada, “The crate (some-
times called a stall) is a simple pen made of metal that contains the sow in the
least possible space that is economically feasible. Sows housed in a crate
…
cannot turn around,
but they can stand up
and lie down and take
one step forward or
backward.”31
Confined sows
suffer health prob-
lems not commonly
seen in pigs raised
outdoors. They have
more foot and leg
injuries—including
fractures—probably
Pregnant pigs are typically held in cramped gestation crates.
as a result of living
in pens with slatted floors. They also have more urinary tract infections,
32

perhaps because the floors on which they lie are dirtied with their own
waste. Furthermore, gestation crates increase the likelihood that sows will
endure particularly long or painful births; fail to secrete milk; and suffer
from “wasting disease,” which causes them to gradually lose weight, have
a variety of organ problems, and often die. (The bacterial or other cause of
wasting disease has not yet been identified.)
Farrowing crates in which sows could give birth to and nurse their pig-
lets were introduced because the sows had a habit of lying on their piglets
and crushing them to death. That failure of the maternal instinct is itself
partly the result of poor breeding practices. Pigs have been selected for lean
meat and rapid growth; somewhere in their breeding history, they lost the
ability to protect their young properly. Farrowing crates do help protect
piglets, so industrial farm operators argue that tight confinement is a wel-


fare measure. But old-fashioned pigs raised the old-fashioned way normally
didn’t crush their offspring.
Treating pigs humanely does not necessarily sacrifice productivity.
Sweden banned gestation crates in 1994, and the United Kingdom banned
them five years later. (Both the European Union and New Zealand are in
the process of phasing them out.) In Sweden, pork production actually rose
after the ban. In Great Britain, pork production fell, but that was due to an
ongoing outbreak of post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome—an
illness that kills young pigs but is not related to the use or absence of gesta-
tion crates.33
Factory-farmed pigs also must contend with the potentially fatal gases
released by their manure. In many operations, manure falls through slats
in the floor into a pool directly below the pens. Dangerous gases rise up
from that manure. Among them is hydrogen sulfide, which, according to
James Barker—a North Carolina State University expert on animal manure
nutrients—can produce “fear of light, loss of appetite, [and] nervousness”
in pigs.34 In high concentrations, those fumes can be fatal. Other manure
gases, such as ammonia, increase hogs’ risk of pneumonia, other respira-
tory diseases, and convulsions.

Chickens
Layer hens—chick-
ens raised to produce
eggs—are housed in
stacked rows of tiny
“battery cages,” typ-
ically with five to
seven birds per cage.
According to an ani-
mal welfare organiza-
tion, a single farm may
house up to 800,000
birds at a time.35 For
adult Leghorn chick-
ens, the most widely used breed in the world, academic researchers recom-
mend that each bird be allotted half a square foot.36 In 2005, the United Egg
Producers—a major industry group—increased its recommended allotment
from 0.33 square feet per bird to between 0.47 and 0.60 square feet, depend-
ing on the size of the hen.37 That recommendation will be phased in over five
years. (The European Union requires 0.5 to 0.6 square feet, and will increase


Concentrated Disasters
The confinement of tens of thousands of chickens and thousands of pigs in small
areas is a prescription for mass disaster. When Hurricane Katrina devastated Loui-
siana, Mississippi, and Alabama in 2005, it was not just people who were affected:
Millions of chickens were killed due to power outages and lack of water.38 The
same thing happened in North Carolina in 1999, when the winds and rain of Hur-
ricane Floyd killed more than 2 million chickens and turkeys and hundreds of thou-
sands of hogs.39

that requirement to 0.8 square feet by 2012.40) Note that an 8½-by-11-inch
sheet of paper is 0.65 square feet—about 30 percent larger than the space a
hen in the United States is now provided.
Although hens that are less crowded are more productive individually,
the poultry industry gets a higher overall yield of eggs by cramming more
hens into fewer cages. Rollin, at Colorado State University, notes: “It is none-
theless more economically efficient to put a greater number of birds into
each cage. Though each hen is less productive when crowded, the opera-
…
tion as a whole makes more money with a high stocking density: Chickens
are cheap, cages are expensive.”41
Rollin is also concerned about the wire floors of battery cages, which
may injure hens’ feet and legs.42 A chicken may catch its head, neck, or
wings in the wire sides of the cage, which could lead to serious injury.
Another problem is that the tight confinement does not permit exercise,
such as normal wing-flapping and (brief) flying. The absence of exercise
increases the incidence of lameness, brittle bones (osteoporosis), and mus-
cle weakness. At slaughter, 6.5 percent of caged hens have broken wings
compared to just 0.5 percent of free-range hens. Dust-bathing—another
regular activity of chickens and a natural protection against parasites—
also is impossible in
the cramped cages.
In contrast to
practices in America,
Switzerland banned
the use of barren
cages that lack mate-
rials for nesting, and
the European Union
is in the process of
banning them as
well.43


Broiler chickens, in contrast to layer hens, are raised on sawdust floors
in sheds as big as football fields. They are kept together for their entire,
albeit brief, six-week lives in groups of 10,000, 20,000, and sometimes even
50,000. Obviously, it is impossible for farmers to monitor the health of indi-
vidual animals in such a setting. When disease outbreaks occur, they can
race through entire flocks and cause widespread death, or, in the case of
Exotic Newcastle disease or avian influenza (bird flu), require the slaughter
of the entire flock.44
The floor covering in a broiler house is not changed during the course
of a single flock’s life—or even several flocks’ lives. Feathers, feces, and feed
all become mixed with sawdust. The high acidity of chicken dung that col-
lects on floors can cause burns on chickens’ feet and legs.45

Pushed to Produce
Dairy Cattle
As the rate of milk production has risen—it is now six times as high as
100 years ago46—dairy cows increasingly have suffered health problems.
One major problem is mastitis, which is treated with antibiotics.47 To maxi-
mize milk production, cows on tightly managed farms are impregnated as
soon as two months after giving birth. That keeps them producing milk as
though they were nursing, even though their calves usually are removed
shortly after birth. Modern cows can sustain their extraordinary productiv-
ity for only about five or six years, at which time they are sold for beef. A
well-cared-for cow normally could live into her 20s.48
The dairy industry is the source of at least 75 percent of the cattle that
arrive at slaughterhouses unable to walk or stand.49 Dairy farms produce so
many “downers” because cows are slaughtered when their milk production
falls, and decreased production usually occurs when the cows are either
sick or old. Also, intensive milk production can deplete the calcium content
of bones, increasing the risk that a cow will break a leg or pelvis. Downer

Growth Hormone: More Milk, Harm to Cows
Dairy farmers, ever eager to increase milk production, have turned for help to
Monsanto’s synthetic bovine growth hormone, Prosilac (also called recombinant
bovine somatotropin, rBST). The hormone increases milk production by about 10
percent. However, it also increases the incidence of udder infections (mastitis) by
about 25 percent, which may increase the need for antibiotics. A meta-analysis
found that Prosilac also increases lameness by 50 percent, reduces fertility, and
probably decreases cows’ life spans.50


animals are frequently dragged into the slaughterhouse or lifted by a leg
and hauled in.

Chickens
Today’s hens produce
an average of about
275 eggs per year,
four times the 1933
average of 70. One of
the key tools for max-
imizing production is
the practice of forced
molting. Under natu-
ral conditions, birds
molt annually, shed-
ding and then replacing their feathers. During the process, egg laying slows
to a halt, but the hen’s reproductive tract regenerates, extending her produc-
tive life.
Natural annual molting is not efficient enough for farmers, so they
induce molting by subjecting their chickens to stressors by restricting food
(for up to 12 days), water (for up to 3), and sometimes light as well.51 Accord-
ing to United Egg Producers’ standards, birds subjected to such a regimen
should lose no more than 30 percent of their weight and less than 1 per-
cent should die.52 The egg industry defends forced molting, stating that it
increases hens’ productive lives from 75 weeks to at least 110 weeks and
decreases the number of new hens needed by 40 to 50 percent.

Development of Neurotic Behaviors
Cattle
Cattle on ranges walk several miles each day and spend 8 to 10 hours graz-
ing. Confined cattle clearly cannot do this, and even lying down and stand-
ing up may be difficult in stalls. One response to this unnatural environ-
ment is that an animal will rub its head repeatedly against a stationary
object, such as the bars of its cage, for extended periods. It might also bite
the cage bars, grating its teeth back and forth on the metal. Cattle deprived
of the ability to move freely sometimes roll their eyes back into their heads
until only the whites are exposed.53
Additionally, the combination of implanted growth hormones, crowd-
ing, and the introduction of new cattle contributes to “buller syndrome”
whereby one steer is ridden repeatedly by others in the group. That behavior


is common in feedlots and may result in serious injuries, including broken
legs or cracked spines.54
Other neurotic behaviors of cattle include stampeding, rejection of
their young, and failure to produce milk.55 While sometimes violent, the
stereotyped behaviors of cattle are less often fatal than are those of pigs and
chickens, as discussed below.56

Pigs
Pregnant sows confined
in crates exhibit numerous
abnormal behaviors.57 They
commonly chew while their
mouths are empty, bite the bars
of their cage, and constantly
press the drinking nipple.
Feed restrictions and boredom
exacerbate those behaviors.
Sows in gestation crates may
sit on their haunches like
dogs—an atypical position for pigs, but one that they adopt because of the
challenges of lying down and standing up in such limited spaces.
While pregnant, farrowing, and nursing sows are housed in tiny cages,
most other pigs are kept in mid-sized group pens. The size of the pens and
the number of animals in them varies from one operation to another, but
when too many pigs are kept in a pen, they fare poorly. In a study of pigs
subjected to a variety of stressors, being crowded with many other animals
caused more stress than any other factor.58 Pigs housed tightly together
often bite each others’ tails.59 Once tail-biting begins, the behavior spreads
rapidly through a herd. In some cases, the tail may be bitten down to the spi-
nal cord, and some victims bleed to death or contract serious infections.60

Feral Pigs Versus Domesticated Pigs
The behaviors of domesticated pigs that are released into the wild contrast sharply
with those of pigs raised in crowded indoor quarters. Feral pigs build small nests
for group sleeping. They urinate and defecate at least 20 feet from their nests.61
When wild sows become pregnant, they isolate themselves from the rest of their
group and build a private nest in which to give birth. That behavior is impossible
on factory farms, where pigs are trapped together and lack the materials for
building nests. Also, feral pigs are highly social animals that typically live in family
groups led by a dominant female.


Many of the abnormal behaviors of confined pigs—including tail bit-
ing—may be reduced simply by providing them with straw, sawdust, or
other fibrous material.62 Straw keeps floors drier and helps piglets stay
warm. It also keeps animals from slipping, thereby reducing leg damage.
Finally, it helps alleviate the tedium by allowing them to build nests and
engage in other natural forms of behavior.

Chickens
Caged laying hens pace about to the extent they can and shake their heads
in a neurotic manner. Those behaviors reflect the birds’ perception of dan-
ger and their inability to escape. Under natural conditions, chickens instinc-
tively search and investigate, pecking and scratching in the dirt for food
most of the day. Denied anything to explore, caged hens exhibit polydip-
sia—the excessive manipulation of water dispensers and overconsumption
of water.63
Chickens also resort to pecking their cage mates, leaving bare and
bleeding patches on them and disrupting their ability to regulate their body
temperature. In the worst cases, feather pecking results in death. While
free-range chickens may peck one another, victims can escape, so injuries
usually are less severe and fatalities less common.64
Confined layer hens obviously cannot engage in their natural nesting
behavior because they do not have access to straw and other materials.
Poultry will work hard to obtain nesting material and will go without food
and water rather than without a nest.65 Unable to perform that instinctive

Feral Chickens Versus Domesticated Chickens
Wild chickens serve as a useful indicator of how domesticated chickens might
behave if industrial agriculture did not restrict their behaviors. Colorado State
University professor Bernard Rollin has noted that feral hens forage over more than
100,000 square feet, while roosters cover five times as much ground.66 That is in
stark contrast to the 0.5 square feet available to caged layer hens. In the wild, the
animals roost in groups of 6 to 30, with roosts positioned about 200 feet apart.

Feral hens demonstrate strong maternal behavior. For example, hens with chicks
threaten other hens that come within 20 feet. Mothers do not start to leave their
chicks until they are five to six weeks old. Farmed chicks, in contrast, are never
mothered.

Farmed chickens still retain their ancestral instincts, judging from a study of chick-
ens released into the wild. Amazingly, those highly inbred birds immediately began
foraging for food, roosting in trees, building nests, and raising their young.67


behavior, chickens may “display agitated pacing and escape behaviors that
last for two to four hours” before laying eggs.
For their part, broiler chickens, trapped in huge crowded houses, may
exhibit “hysteria,” a neurotic behavior marked by panicked vocalizing and
wild flying.68 That can lead to serious injuries.
Chickens also develop what is called deep pectoral myopathy.69 The
pectoral muscle normally is used to elevate wings, but in modern chickens
it is rarely used. When the birds become excited—particularly when they
are being chased and caught before transport—they suddenly and heavily
exert that muscle. It expands within its thick, inelastic covering, cutting off
its own blood flow. The muscle becomes dry and green and begins to die.
Some 60 million broiler chickens are raised each year strictly for the
purpose of producing the next generation of broiler chickens.70 Those hens’
genetic makeup not only leads to fast growth, but also to heart disease
and lameness. To avoid those problems and to increase fertility, producers
underfeed their hens. Those birds are fed as little as half to a quarter of the
amount of food they would otherwise eat. As a result, they are chronically
malnourished and suffer psychological stress.71

Super Chickens
Broilers—chickens grown for meat—face unique challenges. Broilers once took
13 weeks to reach market weight, during which time they ate 3 pounds of feed for
every pound of body weight gained. Losses primarily were due to infectious dis-
eases, and mortality was as high as 30 percent. Now, modern breeding and feed-
ing practices bring broilers to market weight in five to six weeks—and they need
to eat only 1.8 pounds of feed to gain 1 pound of body weight. Mortality is only
about 4 percent.72 Those figures represent real progress, but the progress brings
new problems.

Most deaths in broiler chickens now result not from infections or predators but
from cannibalism in crowded chicken houses.73 Also, skeletal growth cannot keep
up with the extraordinary enlargement of muscle and body mass, so birds fre-
quently suffer broken bones.74 Chickens may die from obesity-related disorders,
such as liver and kidney failure, or cardiovascular disorders.

What Farm Animals Consume
Animals raised on factory farms are used as living garbage disposals. In
addition to grains and roughage, they may be fed newspaper, out-of-date
baked goods, candy, industrial sludge, manure, and sewage, among other
waste products.75 Those “foods” may be contaminated with pesticides,


Vanishing Veal
7 Veal production is a small and shrinking segment of the U.S. cat-
tle industry, thanks in large part to outcries from animal welfare
6 advocates. Farmers produce only half a pound of veal per person
per year, one-tenth as much as in the 1950s.76 Most of the veal
Pounds produced per person

5 served at restaurants is white veal, coming from calves whose
diet is restricted only to milk. Such a diet leads to anemia. The
4
paucity of healthy red blood cells gives the meat its char-
3 acteristic pale color. Because their diet prevents the devel-
opment of a natural mix of bacteria, calves tend to
2 have diarrhea and other digestive disorders.77 To add
insult to injury, veal calves (usually males)
1
are confined in pens so small
that they cannot turn around or
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 lie down in a natural position.

heavy metals, and such carcinogens as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
polybrominated biphenyls, dioxins, and furans, all of which are industrial
by-products that pollute the environment.78 In 2000, for instance, tests by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that 44 percent of samples
of animal feed contained pesticide residues, with 2 percent exceeding the
legal limits.79
Some of the toxins livestock consume are fat soluble and build up in their
body fat. The fattiest beef and dairy products (and, to a lesser extent, poultry
and pork) deliver the highest concentrations of the toxins. Those chemicals
also threaten the health of the animals, particularly just before and after birth,
because during pregnancy and lactation a large portion of fat is mobilized in
the mother’s body. If the fat in the mother’s milk contains toxins, newborns
can experience significant exposures that may affect their health.80

You Call This Food?
Cattle, sheep, goats, and other ruminant animals evolved to eat and obtain
energy from cellulose-rich grasses. That ability allows them to make use of
plant matter that other animals cannot digest. However, cattle grow more
slowly when they eat grasses than when they eat high-energy corn and
other grains. So, to fatten their cattle as quickly as possible, ranchers typi-
cally ship them to feedlots for the final three to five months of their lives.
There they are fed an unnatural diet that contains as much as 90 percent
grain.


High-grain diets cause the gastrointestinal system to be more acidic.
Normally, the rumen (the part of the stomach in a cow, sheep, or goat that
digests grass and other food) is slightly acidic, with a pH near 6. On a high-
grain diet, the pH may fall to 5 or even 4. A decrease of 1 pH unit means that
the rumen is 10 times more acidic, and a decrease of 2 pH units means the
rumen is 100 times more acidic.81 The higher acidity alters the natural mix
of bacteria in the cat-
tle’s digestive system,
selecting for bacteria
that better tolerate
acids. One such bac-
terium is Escherichia
coli O157:H7, the nasty
foodborne pathogen
that causes about 80
deaths annually in
the United States (see
appendix A, p. 172).82
The digestive system of cattle is not designed to process large The altered bac-
amounts of grain. The result: ulcers, bloat, liver abscesses, hoof
infections, growth of acid-tolerant E. coli O157:H7. terial environment
can cause ulcers in
the rumen. Bacteria then may travel through the ulcers to the liver, where
they frequently cause abscesses. To help prevent that, feedlot operators add
antibiotics such as tylosin (an antibiotic similar to the erythromycin used
to treat infections in humans) to the animals’ feed. Without antibiotics, the
livers from about 75 percent of cattle would have to be discarded due to
abscesses. Even with antibiotics, about 13 percent of livers are condemned
at slaughter.83
Bacteria that migrate through ulcers also can infect the hooves of cattle
and cause lameness, which accounts for 16 percent of feedlot health prob-
lems and 5 percent of deaths.84 Less commonly, a high-grain diet causes
dehydration, shock, and kidney failure.85
An acidified rumen can trigger diarrhea, bloat (likened by one expert
to “a massive stomach ache”), and grain overload, a potentially fatal con-
dition.86 James Russell, a Cornell University and USDA microbiologist,
estimates that about 3 of every 1,000 cattle in feedlots die of grain-related
disorders.87
Grain-based diets must be introduced gradually to cattle. When cattle
are fed too much grain too suddenly, their rumens may develop bloat,
expanding to the point where they press up against the lungs. Without


immediate medical attention, bloat can cause death by suffocation.88 That
is what happened in 2005 at a feedlot in Alberta, Canada. Because the
cattle’s feed was incorrectly mixed and contained too much barley and bar-
ley silage, it caused “acute carbohydrate ingestion” and killed 150 cattle.89
High-grain diets appear to cause abnormal behaviors. In pursuit of
roughage, cattle will chew on any available source, including wooden
fences.90 The lack of roughage, coupled with confinement, also results in
neurotic tongue rolling. That behavior simulates the motion of wrapping
the tongue around tufts of grass—except that the grass is imaginary.91 Graz-
ing cattle curl their tongues around tufts of grass thousands of times per
day, so it is not surprising that the absence of such a customary behavior
has consequences. Tongue rolling is not observed among cattle on pasture
or among wild bovines.

Antibiotics, Antacids, and More
Industrial agriculture—with its dirty, overcrowded, high-production sys-
tems—often increases the likelihood of certain illnesses and the need for
antibiotics. As mentioned earlier, intensive milk production causes masti-
tis in the udders of dairy cows, which is treated with antibiotics. Hogs in
cramped pens may bite off one another’s tails, leaving exposed sores ripe for
infection. Crowding also speeds the spread of disease among animals. And
processing animal wastes (discussed below) into feed transmits pathogens
to animals and increases the risk of infections and need for medication.92
Feedlot operators use antibiotics and antacids to prevent and treat the
diseases caused by high-grain diets. The antibiotics are added to cattle
feed to kill the bacteria that cause liver abscesses and hoof infections (see
“Factory Farming’s Antibiotic Crutch,” p. 68). Feedlot operators also add
ordinary baking soda, limestone, and other alkaline substances to feed to
neutralize excessive acidity in the rumen.93 In fact, one-fourth of all baking
soda produced in the United States is fed to livestock.94

Pesticides and Other Chemical Toxins
PCBs and organochlorine pesticides are “endocrine disruptors,” which
may strengthen or weaken the action of natural hormones in animals
and humans. Endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) may affect many
aspects of development, but especially sexual development. For example,
they decrease sperm production in many animals, including humans. In
cattle, EDCs can upset the maturation of oocytes (the cells that produce eggs
in female mammals). During sensitive periods of development, EDCs can
induce physiological changes at concentrations less than one-hundredth of
those that are toxic at other times.95


Sex Hormones on Ranches
Ranchers routinely castrate their bulls to make them more docile and produce
fattier, more tender meat, but castration reduces the levels of growth-promot-
ing hormones and the growth rate of steers. For 25 years the cattle industry has
compensated for that slower growth by implanting natural (estradiol, progester-
one, testosterone) or synthetic (trenbolone acetate, zeranol) sex hormones into
steers’ ears (which are discarded after slaughter). Another hormone, melengestrol
acetate, is added to feed. A dollar’s worth of hormones saves at least 10 dollars’
worth of feed.96 Pigs and chickens are not allowed to be treated with hormones.

The use of hormones is controversial, because the slightly increased amounts
of hormones in beef could conceivably affect growth and development or cause
cancer in consumers. In 1989 the European Union banned hormone-treated beef,
including imports from North America. (The ban hasn’t stopped many European
farmers from injecting hormones illegally.) European officials contend that hor-
mones—especially estradiol—might cause cancer or neurological, developmental,
reproductive, or immunological effects.97

In fact, there’s little evidence that hormones pose a risk.98 The World Health Orga-
nization explains that hormone implants in treated cattle “contributed only a small
additional amount of hormone to the intakes resulting from consumption of other
foods.” Indeed, we ingest far more hormones from eggs, milk, and soybean oil
than from meat. The FDA and USDA note that hormone levels in meat from treated
cattle are within the normal range of untreated animals. Moreover, very little of
the hormones in beef is absorbed by the body, and, in any case, even children
produce far more hormones than are present in meat. Finally, one marketer of
both treated and untreated beef acknowledges that
the hormone-free claim is a “marketing tool used to
create a false fear.”99 While one can’t prove that any-
thing is perfectly safe, hormone implants (especially
the natural ones) do not appear to be worrisome.

Separate from health concerns, toxicologists have
discovered that hormones in the manure of feedlot
cattle (and urban sewage treatment plants) can pol-
lute nearby streams.100 The hormones, both naturally
occurring and the extra amount from implants, are
associated with smaller testes and fewer offspring in
minnows and might also affect other wildlife. Edward Orlando, a reproductive
physiologist at Florida Atlantic University, worries that “we know almost nothing
about the environmental impact of hormones from agricultural sources.”101 The
solution would be to reduce the concentration of cattle at feedlots and prevent
water pollution from manure and urine.


Dioxin causes cancer in animals, as well as reproductive and develop-
mental problems. In 2003, dioxin-contaminated waste from a brass factory
was inadvertently used in animal feed, causing numerous deaths.102 The
contamination eventually was discovered, and the remaining meat and
milk from the animals that had eaten the feed were removed from the mar-
ket. However, a good deal of dioxin must have passed from meat and dairy
products to consumers before the problem was identified.

Sludge, Manure, and Feces
Sewage sludge—everything pulled out of dirty water at waste-treatment
plants—and raw or composted manure are commonly fed to livestock both
directly and indirectly. For example, manure is commonly applied to crop-
land because it contains nutrients that serve as fertilizer. But manure is
also rich in bacteria and chemical contaminants, including organic com-
pounds and heavy metals. Livestock are exposed to those hazards when
they graze on manure-treated fields and when they eat crops grown in
contaminated soil. Since 1992, when Congress banned ocean dumping
of sewage sludge, municipalities’ most common method for disposing of
sewage waste has been to offer it to farmers as fertilizer.103 Excess nitrogen
from the waste can pollute the water drunk by calves and lambs, caus-
ing “blue baby syndrome,” which on rare occasions results in suffocation
and death.104 That syndrome, which also occurs (albeit rarely) in humans,
develops when young animals consume excess nitrate, which, when con-
verted by bacteria in the gut to nitrite, prevents hemoglobin from carry-
ing oxygen.

Candid Camera at a Poultry Farm
In 2004, workers at a West Virginia facility owned by Pilgrim’s Pride—the second-
largest poultry producer in the United States—were caught on videotape stomp-
ing on live chickens, throwing them against walls, and kicking them. Although not
typical, that despicable behavior serves as a useful reminder that poultry are not
protected by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act for livestock, leaving them
open to a variety of cruel practices.105

“Poultry litter”—a euphemism for the mixture of manure, feathers,
wood chips, and spilled feed collected from the floors of poultry houses—is
commonly fed to other animals. In one extreme case, poultry litter contami-
nated with high levels of copper, which is used to control everything from
algae to snails, killed cattle and sheep.106


Animal Parts
Feeding animal parts back to animals exacerbates the risks from all of the
contaminants to which they are exposed. Although a federal law forbids
feeding cattle parts back to cattle, rendered farm animals remain a common
component of livestock feed. Rendered poultry and hogs may be fed to cat-
tle, and rendered cattle to poultry and hogs.107 Thus, livestock consume the
same concentrated toxins from the fat of slaughtered animals as meat and
dairy eaters. That process may increase contamination of animal products
over time and keep banned or unused chemicals circulating in the food
supply. Moreover, that cycle of feeding animals to animals may be a route
for transferring mad cow disease (for more on that topic, see appendix A,
p. 174).

How They’re Transported
While some animals may take only one trip during their lives—to the abat-
toir—most cattle and pigs endure the stress of transport several times.
According to the USDA, only 24 percent of sheep and 29 percent of pigs
grow up on the farm where they are born.108 In a single year, 22 million
cattle and 27 million hogs were shipped to another state to be fattened or
bred.
The trucks and railroad cars used to transport livestock from farm to
farm or to feedlots and slaughterhouses are even more cramped than the
factory farms themselves. On a truck, the space recommended by animal
welfare experts for a 1,000-pound cow is only 12.8 square feet—half of what
typically is provided in a feedlot.109 Using the Mini Cooper analogy again,
six 1,000-pound cows
are packed into an
area that that petite car
occupies. Full-grown,
1,400-pound cattle get
only 19 square feet. A
400‑pound hog is allot-
ted 6½ square feet in a
truck. That’s half the
size of a gestation crate;
almost 12 hogs could fit
into a Mini’s footprint. Chickens are “harvested” roughly by “catchers” who cram them
into crates, which are then trucked to the slaughterhouse.
Eighty percent of the
calves from Texas and Kansas are shipped an average of about 200 miles
before they are killed.110 During transit, animals are generally deprived of


food and water. Under those conditions, chickens sometimes suffer heart
failure, pigs die from the cold, and sheep may be smothered.111 And the
extreme temperatures—just think of traveling jam-packed in a slat-sided
tractor trailer on a Texas highway in the August heat—kill some animals
outright.112
Shipping promotes the spread of disease among animals, especially
when animals from different herds and flocks exchange pathogens. That is
compounded by the stresses of extreme temperatures, an unfamiliar envi-
ronment, and forced crowding, which can suppress the animals’ immune
systems.113
Movement is particularly difficult for cattle because, according to
Colorado State University’s Bernard Rollin, they “are creatures of habit,
and disruption of habits can be highly stressful. Introduction into a new
…
environment is more stressful for cattle than electric shock.”114 In cattle, the
most common result of stress and exposure to germs is “shipping fever,”115
also called bovine respiratory disease complex. That is a severe form of
pneumonia and the most common cause of death in factory-farmed cattle.
Severe outbreaks, though rare, have killed up to 35 percent of a herd.116
Rough handling injures broiler chickens. When catching chickens for
their journey to the slaughterhouse, workers typically carry up to seven at
a time by one leg. That frequently results in broken bones and dislocated
wing and leg joints.117

How They’re Slaughtered
After the miserable lives most farm animals lead before reaching the
slaughterhouse, one would hope that their deaths would at least be quick
and painless. Unfortunately, that sometimes is not the case. Animals may
endure inhumane conditions while waiting at the slaughterhouse, and,

Candid Camera at a Cattle Slaughterhouse118
Ritual slaughter of animals to provide kosher meat involves cutting the animals’
necks without stunning them first. A kosher slaughterhouse operated in Pottsville,
Iowa, by AgriProcessors, Inc., was caught on videotape apparently violating both
kosher laws and the Humane Slaughter Act. The aggressive animal rights group,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), secretly videotaped mistreat-
ment. As the New York Times described the tape, “after steers were cut by a ritual
slaughterer, other workers pulled out the animals’ tracheas with a hook to speed
bleeding. In the tape, animals were shown staggering around the killing pen with
their windpipes dangling out, slamming their heads against walls and soundlessly
trying to bellow. One animal took three minutes to stop moving.”


Abattoirs: Hell for Workers, Too
In July 2000, Jesus Soto Carbajal, a worker at a Cargill meatpacking plant in
Nebraska, was cutting hindquarters of beef “coming down the line at him every
six seconds.”119 Eventually, the fast pace caught up with Carbajal when his knife
slipped and sliced open his jugular vein. He died almost immediately.

Contemporary meat and poultry slaughterhouses and processing plants are Amer-
ica’s most dangerous places to work. The average slaughterhouse worker is three
times more likely to be injured than the average factory worker.120 The handling
of large and frightened animals, the use of dangerous equipment, and the inad-
equate training of workers all contribute to the epidemic of injuries.

The demand for speed at slaughterhouses and processing plants creates a dilemma
for workers: Accept unsafe working conditions or risk being fired.121 Speed leads to
carelessness, increasing workers’ risk of injury or death. For instance, when work-
ers fail to completely stun cattle or hogs, the animals can regain consciousness
and attack the workers.122

The greatest workplace dangers include high-speed processing lines, sharp knives,
heavy lifting or pushing of animal carcasses, dangerous bacteria from animal
remains, long hours and mandatory overtime, poor training, and a lack of protec-
tive clothing and ergonomically safe equipment.123 Additionally, a lack of union
representation removes a strong force for improving working conditions.

Human Rights Watch characterizes meatpacking and slaughtering plants as places
“where exhausted employees slice into carcasses at a frenzied pace … often suf-
fering injuries from a slip of the knife or from repeating a single motion more than
10,000 times a day.”124 In Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser describes crippling inju-
ries or death, including ones documented by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration: plant workers having hands or other limbs crushed or severed by
machinery, workers being pulled by conveyor belts into grinding equipment, slip-
pery floors causing workers to fall from great heights to their deaths, and work-
ers suffering asphyxiation from cleaning blood collection tanks filled with toxic
gases.125

despite companies’ intentions, their deaths may be slow and excruciating.
Those conditions also endanger slaughterhouse workers (see “Abattoirs:
Hell for Workers, Too,” above). The World Organization for Animal Health,
which is supported by 167 member countries, offers detailed recommenda-
tions for transporting and slaughtering animals in a humane way, but gov-
ernments must implement that advice.
Some holding areas at slaughterhouses have no water. That means ani-
mals are unable to drink from the time they are first loaded onto the trucks


until the time they are slaughtered. Many plants use electric prods to drive
cattle into the slaughterhouse.126
The rate of killing in a typical modern slaughterhouse is breathtaking:
13,200 chickens per hour, 1,100 pigs per hour, 250 cattle per hour. At those
speeds, it is likely impossible to ensure that all animals have been adequately
stunned before they are killed. According to a report commissioned by the
USDA, in some plants, as many as 8 percent of pigs, 20 percent of cattle, and
47 percent of sheep were not properly stunned.127
Slaughterhouses stun broiler chickens by placing their heads in an elec-
trified pool of water. After that, the chickens’ necks are slit. Layer hens are
not typically stunned, because their osteoporotic, unexercised bones break
when exposed to the electrical current.128 Instead, layers are conscious while
their throats are slit.
Cattle and pigs usually are stunned by a pneumatic bolt shot into their
foreheads. But some cattle are not stunned properly and “are often still alive
and conscious as they proceed down the production line,” according to the
Humane Farming Association, an animal welfare organization.129 In both
kosher and halal slaughter, cattle or chickens typically are not stunned
before their throats are slit, so they are fully conscious when they are cut
and as they bleed.130
“The chicken industry is way behind the beef and pork industries” in
terms of adopting more humane practices, according to Professor Temple
Grandin of Colorado State University, a widely respected expert on animal
slaughter techniques.131 Although figures are not available for the United
States, in Europe—where similar slaughter methods are used—about
30 percent of broiler chickens are not adequately stunned before slaughter.132
That means the animals may suffer extreme pain as they are being “decon-
structed.” Poultry are exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
of 1978, which requires livestock handling and slaughtering to be “carried
out only by humane methods” and calls for animals to be “quickly rendered
insensible to pain before they are slaughtered.” The Humane Society of the
United States has sued the USDA to end that exemption.133

Agriculture Also Affects Non-Farm Animals
Livestock are not the only animals that suffer from the current system of
agricultural production in the United States. The USDA acknowledges that
agricultural practices are the “primary factor depressing wildlife popula-
tions in North America.”134 Of the 663 species listed as threatened or endan-
gered, 272 made the list because of agricultural expansion and 115 due to
the use of fertilizers and pesticides.135 Agricultural pesticides are associ-


Sport fish, such as this trout, can be harmed by pesticides. They can also concentrate toxins in their
fat and harm their predators—both human and animal.

ated with possible changes in hormonal activity in frogs and other amphib-
ians (see “Pesticides: Gauging the Health Risk,” p. 84). Agricultural fertiliz-
ers and livestock manure pollute streams, causing algal blooms that starve
fish of oxygen, ultimately suffocating them (see “Modern Farming Practices
Pollute Water,” p. 94). Sewage sludge applied to pasture not only affects live-
stock, but deer and other animals as well. As with livestock, the toxins in
the sludge may kill the animals outright or may be stored in their fat and
passed on to the dwindling number of large predators, such as wolves. A
more direct threat is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state gov-
ernments routinely kill wolves that may threaten livestock.
Pesticides—especially insecticides—unintentionally kill many species,
including the natural predators of crop pests. (It is important to note that
what might be considered a pest to crops could be beneficial in a different
ecosystem. Thus, the term “pest” does not necessarily mean an organism
is inherently harmful.) Each year, millions of pounds of pesticides lethal to
a broad range of species are applied across millions of acres of farmland.
That usage causes widespread ecological harms to non-target species, such
as insects, weeds, fish in nearby rivers and streams, and the wildlife that
depend on those insects and fish for survival.
Consumers higher up on the food chain—including insects, birds, larva-
eating fish, frogs and other amphibians, and other terrestrial mammals—


may be poisoned by consuming pesticide-contaminated prey. Because
those consumers typically reproduce in smaller numbers than the insects
and other creatures they eat, their populations are less capable of recover-
ing. Once those populations are reduced, more pesticides are required to
control the pests that the predators otherwise would have controlled.
Some species are particularly vulnerable
to pesticides. For example, the relatively large
surface area of small insects allows them to
absorb lethal doses quickly and easily, mak-
ing non-target insects the frequent victims
of pesticide poisonings.136 Honeybees, for
example, have been so devastated by factors
including pesticides that many farmers need
to rent beehives to ensure that their crops
are pollinated. The decline in important pol-
linators has led the American Beekeeping Federation to decry the overuse
of pesticides, and the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign is
actively trying to reduce the misuse of pesticides that kill insects that pol-
linate crops.137
Birds, fish, and other wildlife are exposed to agricultural-use pesticides
that remain in the environment. Direct or indirect contact with those pesti-
cides can poison them.138 Pesticides on U.S. farmland have been estimated to
kill about 67 million birds each year.139 With birds, for example, the more they
feed on fish that have ingested pesticides (as a result of runoff from contami-
nated soil or drift), the more pesticides those birds accumulate in their tissue.
Fish, too, are highly susceptible to pesticides as a result of soil runoff
from farmland into bodies of water or from drift during or after pesticide
applications. Major fish kills have been attributed to aerial sprayings of her-
bicides and insecticides on farmland. High levels of those pesticides were
found in the fish that survived.140 Because fish are important prey for many
species of birds, contaminated fish harm birds and threaten ecosystems.

What It All Means
Humane treatment of livestock should be an ethical imperative. Giving ani-
mals enough space so that they are not driven to attack each other is not dif-
ficult—farmers provided that for generations. Allowing animals to act out
most of their natural behaviors should be achievable. If they were allowed
to go outside, given straw so they could build nests, and permitted to estab-
lish a natural social order, fewer animals would be needlessly injured or
killed. Avoiding certain cruel procedures altogether makes sense—espe-


cially when they are only performed because of inappropriate animal hus-
bandry (as with debeaking chickens and detoeing turkeys). Feeding cattle
diets that do not make them sick is feasible—let them eat what they always
ate, instead of fattening them on grain and toxin-tainted feed. When ani-
mals are shipped, they should be given adequate room and protection from
extreme heat or cold—that is done for horses all the time. Finally, animals
could be slaughtered humanely if workers were adequately trained, slaugh-
tering lines were slowed down, and poultry were rendered unconscious by
inert gases.
Until practice is consistent with theory, the simplest thing a consumer
could do for animal welfare is to eat less (or even no) meat and other animal
products. That would reduce the number of farm animals and the potential
for mistreatment. Consumers also could choose meat and dairy products
made from more humanely raised animals (see www.certifiedhumane.org
or www.eatwild.com). Meanwhile, the entire animal-food industry—vol-
untarily or in response to new laws—should be improving its practices
as much as possible. While those improvements might raise the price of
animal products, the higher prices we would pay at the grocery store would
be slight indeed compared to the price livestock are now paying.

Changing Your Own Diet

A
s you’ve now seen,
what you eat has
effects that ripple not
just through every organ in
your body, but also through
the natural environment and
farms and other parts of the
food industry. Will you change
your diet or continue eating as
you have been? If you’re like
most of us, you probably could make some easy and tasty changes that will
help protect your arteries, protect the planet, and protect farm animals.
While some people think nutrition is impossibly complicated, today’s
basic dietary message is actually quite clear and simple. The experts (see
table 1) recommend that you:

 Base your diet largely on vegetables, fruits, beans, whole grains, and
healthy oils.
 Eat fish and only modest amounts—if you choose to eat them—of fat-free
or low-fat meat and dairy products.

143


Table 1. Health experts’ dietary advice1
Organization Nutrition advice
American Cancer “Eat five or more servings of a variety of vegetables and
Society fruits each day.… Limit consumption of red meats, especially
those high in fat and processed [bacon, ham, sausage].
Choose fish, poultry, or beans as an alternative to beef,
pork, and lamb.”
American Diabetes “Reduced intake of total fat, particularly saturated fat, may
Association reduce risk for diabetes… [as would] increased intake of
whole grains and dietary fiber.”
American Heart “Consume a diet rich in vegetables and fruits hole-grain,
…w
Association high-fiber foods sh ean meats and vegetable alternatives,
…fi …l
fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1% fat) dairy products.”
American Institute “Choose predominantly plant-based diets, rich in a variety
for Cancer Research/ of fruits and vegetables, pulses (legumes), and minimally
World Cancer processed starchy foods.”
Research Foundation
2005 Dietary “A healthy eating plan is one that emphasizes fruits,
Guidelines for vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk
Americans and milk products. Includes lean meats, poultry, fish,
beans, eggs, and nuts. Is low in saturated fats, trans fat,
cholesterol, salt (sodium), and added sugars.”
World Health “[Eat] more fruit and vegetables, as well as nuts and
Organization whole grains.… [Cut] the amount of fatty, sugary foods
in the diet.… [Move] from saturated animal-based fats to
unsaturated vegetable-oil based fats.”

 Cut way back on salt, refined sugars, white flour, and partially hydroge-
nated oils.
Making the right dietary choice can be extended beyond health con-
cerns by eating in an environmentally responsible way. Raising livestock
requires far more resources—land, energy, pesticides, fertilizer, and
water—and generates far more pollution than growing fruits, vegetables,
and grains. Among animal products, producing grain-fed beef harms the
environment much more than raising poultry and grass-fed beef and pro-
ducing dairy foods.
In addition, we should consider animal welfare. Out of sight is usually
out of mind, and it is all too easy to forget about cramped chicken coops,
filthy slaughterhouses, and the like when we sink our teeth into a juicy
charbroiled steak or grilled chicken breast. Those considerations suggest
the benefits of not only avoiding fatty meat, dairy foods, and poultry, but
of eating less animal products and getting essential nutrients from other
sources. Far from being a punishment, eating such a diet opens up a mul-

Changing Your Own Diet • 145

titude of wonderful new taste sensations. Alternatively, you could make a
special effort to buy meat, dairy products, and eggs from humanely raised
animals, ideally from small, local farms.
We can all take control of our diets, even in a culture that encourages
people to eat hamburgers, hot dogs, and soda pop almost from birth. Two
healthy diets that are easy to follow—and delicious—are the modified
Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Eating Plan (see figure 1)
and the Mediterranean Food Pyramid (see figure 2). The DASH Eating Plan
was developed by the National Institutes of Health for studies on blood
pressure.2 It is loaded with fruits and vegetables; recommends nuts, seeds,
and low-fat dairy foods; and includes modest amounts of fish and low-fat
meat and poultry. It also is low in sodium. The DASH diet includes no more
than 4 to 5 servings of low-fat animal foods, and 16 to 19 servings of plant
foods, per day.
The Mediterranean Food Pyramid (figure 2) was developed by Oldways,
a nonprofit organization that advocates healthy, traditional diets. It is based

Figure 1. The DASH Food Pyramid3


Figure 2. Healthy Mediterranean Diet Pyramid

© 2000 Oldways Preservation Exchange Trust, http://oldwayspt.org.

on the diet once consumed widely in southern Europe, including mainland
Greece, the island of Crete, and southern Italy. The diet includes modest
amounts of dairy foods, fish, poultry, and eggs; wine in moderation; and
plenty of fruits, vegetables, beans, and whole grains. The Mediterranean
diet allows red meat only rarely. Both the DASH and Mediterranean diets
specify much less refined sugars than most Americans eat, and they pretty
much exclude butter and stick margarine. Oldways’ Healthy Mediterranean
Diet Pyramid also emphasizes daily physical activity, but that’s a given with
any diet. Walking, biking, jogging, tennis, swimming, weight-lifting, and
other activities are essential to good health.


For those who have ethical concerns about animal welfare or eating
animal products, a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet is the way to go. Such
a diet is based on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dried beans, nuts, and,
if not vegan, low-fat and non-fat dairy products and egg whites. Either
a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet or a vegan diet can provide all the necessary
nutrients while minimizing the risk of chronic disease.4 For any doubters,
the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada are reassur-
ing: “Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally
adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of
certain diseases.”5 Those groups produced a Vegetarian Food Pyramid that
features a healthy lacto-ovo vegetarian diet (see figure 3 for our adaptation
of that pyramid).6

Figure 3. Vegetarian Food Pyramid7

1 tsp
oil, soft
margarine,
or mayonnaise Fats
2 servings
1 medium fruit, a day
½ cup cut-up or cooked
fruit, ½ cup fruit juice,
Fruits 1/4 cup dried fruit,

2 or more servings ½ cup calcium-fortified fruit juice
a day

½ cup cooked vegetables;
1 cup raw vegetables; ½ cup vegetable juice;
1 cup cooked or 2 cups raw bok choy, broccoli,
collards, kale, Chinese cabbage, mustard greens,
or okra; ½ cup calcium-fortified tomato juice Vegetables
4 or more servings
a day
Legumes, ½ cup cooked beans, peas, or lentils; ½ cup tofu or tempeh;
milks, 2 tbs nut or seed butter; ¼ cup nuts (including almonds);
1 oz meat analogue; 1 egg; 1/2 cup cow’s milk,
nuts, other yogurt, or calcium-fortified soymilk; ¾ oz cheese;
protein foods ½ cup tempeh or calcium-set tofu;
5 servings ½ cup cooked soybeans; ¼ cup soynuts
a day

1 slice whole-grain bread, ½ cup cooked whole grain or cereal (oatmeal,
brown rice, whole-wheat pasta, wheat berries, bulgur, buckwheat groats),
1 oz whole-grain ready-to-eat cereal (Wheaties, Cheerios, All-Bran,
Shredded Wheat, wheat germ, and others),
1 oz calcium-fortified whole-grain breakfast cereal Grains
6 or more servings a day,
mostly whole grains

Notes: This pyramid is designed for both vegans and those who eat dairy products and eggs. Aim for
eight servings a day of calcium-rich foods (in italics), and be sure to get sufficient vitamins B12 and
D from foods or supplements. (A serving of milk or yogurt is ½ cup.)


The Vegetarian Food Pyramid
Avoid Food Poisoning
replaces meat and poultry with nuts
(and nut butters), beans (including Whatever diet you choose, protect
tofu), seeds, and eggs. It emphasizes yourself from germs that lurk in
low-fat or non-fat milk, yogurt, or animal products and in fruits and
cheese or vegetarian substitutes. Veg- vegetables. Wash your hands and
all cooking implements after they
ans can easily adapt that lacto-ovo
come in contact with raw meat and
diet to their needs. Because of their
poultry. Wash fruits and vegetables
more restricted diets, vegetarians
before eating them. And keep hot
(especially vegans) should eat fortified
foods hot and cold foods cold.
foods or take dietary supplements to
ensure that they consume adequate amounts of vitamin B12, calcium, vita-
min D, iron, and zinc.8
Anyone who does continue to eat animal foods should consider buying
ones that caused the least misery for the animals. That means eggs from
uncaged hens, beef from cattle that never saw a feedlot, pork and poultry
from pigs and birds that could roam about, and milk from cows that grazed
on pastures, weather permitting. Look for label claims like “humanely
raised” and, if you’re at a farmer’s market, ask the farmers about their prac-
tices. Even animals raised organically are not necessarily raised in the most
humane ways. Several resources are provided in appendix B, p. 179.
When changing your diet for health, environmental, or ethical reasons,
you need to remember that avoiding fatty meat and dairy products is only
half the solution. The other half is choosing healthy plant-based foods. Most
of the bread, pasta, rice, and other grain foods that Americans consume are
made from refined grains; soft drinks and candy are made with empty-
calorie sugar and high-fructose corn syrup; and too much once-healthy
vegetable oil has been partially hydrogenated and contains artery-clogging
trans fat (that is especially the case for fried foods at restaurants).
Making several little changes quickly adds up to an overall healthier
diet. Consider someone who replaced one 3½-ounce serving of beef, one
egg, and a 1-ounce serving of cheese each day with a mix of vegetables,
fruit, beans, and whole grains. That modest change would increase the
person’s daily consumption of dietary fiber by 16 grams (more than half the
recommended intake) and reduce the intake of fat by 22 grams (one-third
of the recommended daily limit) and saturated fat by 12 grams (more than
half the recommended limit).9 In environmental terms, over a year, those
changes would spare the need for 1.8 acres of cropland, 40 pounds of fertil-
izer, and 3 ounces of pesticides. It also would mean dumping 11,400 fewer
pounds of animal manure into the environment. Multiply those improve-


ments by millions of people and it’s easy to see the dramatic improvements
in health and reductions in pollution that dietary changes could bring
about. (You can see the effects of the dietary changes that you might make
by using our computerized calculator at the Center for Science in the Public
Interest’s web site at www.EatingGreen.org.)
We’ve created a Diet Scorecard (next page) to help you gauge the overall
impact of your diet on your health, the environment, and the welfare of
farm animals (our computerized version is a lot easier to use). The health
score reflects the benefits of plant foods, seafood, and low-fat animal prod-
ucts and the harm from the saturated fat, cholesterol, and other substances
in animal foods. The environmental dimension considers such factors as
air and water pollution from feedlots and industrial-style hog and poultry
production, methane emitted by cattle, and problems related to fertilizers
and pesticides. The animal welfare score reflects such practices as crowding
on factory farms and feedlots and inhumane treatment at slaughterhouses.

Changing Government Policies

T
he preceding chapters have detailed many of the human health,
environmental, and animal welfare problems stemming from ani-
mal agriculture—particularly when conducted on an industrial
scale. All of those problems would be diminished if Americans switched to
a more plant-based diet.
Although millions of people have
adopted healthier, more plant-based diets,
change is hard, because diet is embedded
in our family traditions and culture and
perpetuated by major industries. It will
take more than occasional public service
messages, newspaper articles, and official
reports to get the bulk of the population eat-
ing a “greener” diet.
This chapter suggests a variety of
government programs and policies—few
of which would be easily obtained—that
would help move Americans toward a more plant-based diet. Recogniz-
ing that not everyone would or should become a vegetarian, we suggest
means of both obtaining healthier animal products and improving how

151


animals are raised. Consumer demand will be the most important factor
in changing what people eat, what food marketers offer, and what farm-
ers grow. But nutrition- and environment-based food and farm policies
could improve diets indirectly. To that end, some of the policy options
suggested here would “internalize” the health and environmental costs
of producing animal products. That would mean paying a little more at
the supermarket, but paying less in the form of higher medical costs and
a degraded environment. As Joel Salatin, a Virginia farmer who is a pas-
sionate advocate of small farms and local agriculture, is quoted in Michael
Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, defending the sometimes higher prices
small farmers charge:
I explain that with our food all of the costs are figured into the price. So-
ciety is not bearing the cost of water pollution, of antibiotic resistance, of
foodborne illnesses, of crop subsidies, of subsidized oil and water—all of
the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer that make cheap
food seem cheap.1

Our focus here is on government actions, but companies could act a
lot faster voluntarily. Some progressive companies and farmers, large
and small, alternative and mainstream, already are producing healthier
foods, minimizing their impact on the environment, and raising animals
humanely. We hope other companies will emulate them.
One activity not discussed below, but important, is research. It is crucial
that government continues to invest generously in objective scientific and
economic research on health, the environment, and animal welfare. That
research will provide insights on the effects of different diets and farming
methods and suggest ways to improve government policies and industry
practices.

Improving Human Health
The federal government invests billions of dollars a year in the food stamp
program, school lunches and breakfasts, and similar programs. It feeds
millions daily at cafeterias in its hospitals, mess halls, office buildings, and
prisons. It spends tens of millions of dollars a year on nutrition research
and provides sensible nutrition advice. But the government makes poor use
of its knowledge, resources, and facilities when it comes to preventing heart
disease, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases and saving the tens of bil-
lions of dollars that are now wasted on treating those often-preventable
diseases. The recommendations outlined here challenge the government to
put its words into action.

Changing Government Policies • 153

1. Increase Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
Consuming more nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables is one of the most
important dietary changes that consumers should make. Eating more fruits
and vegetables is heartily endorsed by the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Ameri-
cans, because doing so would add vital nutrients to diets and could displace
less-healthful foods. The government should show that it means what it
says by sponsoring programs, including the following, that would have a
real impact.
 Intensive media campaigns should be initiated to encourage people to
consume more fruits and vegetables (as well as whole grains and beans).
Currently, the “5 A Day” program of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, which encourages people to eat more fruits and vege-
tables, receives only about $5 million in annual funding and has negligi-
ble impact. Other media campaigns should discourage the consumption
of fatty meat and dairy products, soft drinks, and salty processed foods.
The overall budget should be at least $150 million per year (50 cents per
person).
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) highly successful Fruit
and Vegetable Snack Program provides a free serving each day of a fruit
or vegetable to schoolchildren. Unfortunately, the program only has the
funding to reach several hundred schools. Considering that it benefits
both children and farmers, it should
be expanded nationally at an annual
cost of roughly $4 billion. That would
be a far smarter investment than the
$20 billion paid in some years to
grain, cotton, and rice farmers.
 In the Food Stamp program, bonus
stamps could be provided for the
purchase of fresh, frozen, canned,
or dried fruits and vegetables. Sim-
ilarly, as the Institute of Medicine
has recommended, the Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) pro-
gram should provide more fresh
fruits and vegetables and less juice,
cheese, milk, and eggs. The USDA
is required to rewrite its regulations
by November 2006.


 City and state governments should sponsor more farmers’ markets,
especially in low-income communities, to help distribute locally grown
fresh produce.

2. Reduce the Fat Content of Meat
Because animal fat promotes heart disease, it would be helpful if beef and
pork were as lean as possible. (Hog farmers are raising far leaner hogs than
they did several decades ago.) Certain breeds of cattle tend to be lower in fat,
and younger animals usually are lower in fat than older ones. Fat content is
also increased by the high-grain diets cattle eat at feedlots. The government
should implement policies that lower the fat content of meat products.
 The approximate fat content of cattle could be assessed at the slaughter-
house, with a modest per-pound tax levied on higher-fat cattle. The rev-
enues from that tax could be used to reward ranchers and feedlot oper-
ators who deliver lower-fat cattle to market, encourage farmers to raise
lower-fat breeds and feed cattle grain for shorter periods of time, and
encourage consumers to choose lower-fat and pasture-raised beef prod-
ucts. Though pigs are slimmer than ever, analogous programs could
ensure that that healthy trend continues.
 The USDA has standards of identity that limit the fat content of certain
processed meats, but the current limits are a generous 30 percent by
weight in ground beef and hot dogs and 50 percent in pork sausages.
(The average hot dog now contains more than twice as much fat as pro-
tein.) Those high-fat products provide a ready market for fat trimmings
from cattle and hogs and clog consumer arteries. The fat limit for ground
beef and hot dogs should be lowered—perhaps over several years—to
20 percent and for pork sausages to 25 percent. Judging from the many
lower-fat products already on the market, companies could lower the fat
content and still provide good-tasting foods.

3. Reduce the Fat Content of Milk
The saturated fat in cow’s milk is a leading cause of heart disease. Although
individuals now can choose lower-fat dairy products, the fat that is removed
inevitably returns to the market in the form of butter, cream, ice cream, or
other high-fat products. To reduce the volume of saturated fat entering the
food supply, dairy pricing policies should be revised to encourage farmers
to deliver lower-fat milk. Producers that deliver milk lower in saturated fat
could be paid more. The money could come—in a zero-sum manner—from
lower payments for milk that is higher in saturated fat. Several approaches
can improve the nutrient content of milk.


 Use breeds of cows that provide
milk with less total and saturated
fat, and, within those breeds, select
for propagation individual cows
whose milk is lower in fat.
 Add conjugated linoleic acid to the
cows’ feed or change feed in other
ways to lower the total fat content
of milk by about 25 percent.2 “Spreadable” butter is produced naturally in
Ireland by feeding cows a source of unsaturated
 Add canola seeds (the source of fat, such as canola.
canola oil) or other sources of
unsaturated oil to cows’ feed to lower the saturated fat and increase the
unsaturated fat content by 20 percent each.3

4. Label Food More Effectively
The familiar Nutrition Facts label on packaged foods is used daily by mil-
lions of people, but it has not been as effective as some had hoped in improv-
ing diets and promoting health; also, fish, produce, and unprocessed meat
and poultry are not required to have nutrition labels.
 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA should
develop a more effective labeling system to supplement the Nutrition
Facts label. One option would be to require companies to put a symbol
on the front of a product’s package to highlight the food’s overall nutri-
tional value. Foods would be rated according to their content of saturated
fat, sodium, vitamins, and other nutrients and
then required to put a green (“any time”), yel-
low (“sometimes”), or red (“seldom”) circle or
square on the front label. An alternative more
palatable to industry would be to establish a
voluntary system, as the United Kingdom and
Sweden have done (see image). Such straight-
Swedish voluntary “good food” forward front-label symbols would be a great
symbol. help to hurried shoppers, children, and others.
 Steaks, ground beef and poultry, and other fresh and frozen meat and
poultry products are not required to provide nutrition information on
labels. The USDA should order such labeling, which would help people
avoid fattier foods.
 While nutrition information is on most packaged foods, people choose
blindly when they eat out. Chain table-service restaurants should be
required to list on their menus the calorie, saturated and trans fat, and


sodium content of each item. Fast-food restaurants should be required to
post the calorie content of each item on their menu boards.4

5. Prevent Foodborne Diseases
Animals harbor a wide variety of microorganisms that do not harm the
animals but can cause serious and sometimes fatal diseases in humans.
Farming and processing practices, as well as the federal government’s reg-
ulatory system, should be improved to minimize the toll of foodborne dis-
eases. Aside from eating (and producing) less meat, actions to prevent food
poisoning include the following.
 The health and food-safety responsibilities of the USDA, FDA, and
other federal agencies should be consolidated into a single independent
agency, as several other countries have done. The current multi-agency
system is inefficient and suffers from a severe conflict of interest: The
USDA is charged with both promoting the consumption, and regulat-
ing the safety, of meat and poultry products. A new, streamlined pub-
lic health agency should be empowered to levy stiff fines, recall tainted
products from the marketplace, and inspect foreign processing plants.
 Congress should give the federal government a specific mandate to
reduce hazards in the food supply. Pathogen-reduction and enforcement
authority are largely lacking from our existing meat and poultry inspec-
tion laws.
 The USDA should require cattle ranchers to use bar-coded or radio-fre-
quency identification tags or retinal imaging to track individual cattle
from birth to the slaughterhouse and to help pinpoint sources of food poi-
soning and mad cow disease. Such systems are already in use in Europe,
Canada, Japan, and other countries. Fresh produce and grains should
carry information on the country (and possibly the state and farm) of ori-
gin to facilitate traceback in the event of contamination.
 Food-safety measures—from the farm to the supermarket—should be
upgraded. Vaccinations, feed additives, carcass washes, temperature
controls on trucks, and other measures are needed to minimize the pres-
ence of pathogens. On egg farms, for example, layer hens should be cer-
tified as Salmonella-free, and any eggs that might be contaminated with
Salmonella should be pasteurized or cooked in processed foods.
 Outbreak reporting systems should be improved to encourage more thor-
ough investigations and more specific information on the food sources of
the outbreaks. When animal pathogens are found in plant-based foods,
investigators should identify how and where the contamination likely
occurred.


6. Prevent Antibiotic Resistance
Many farmers add medically important antibiotics to livestock feed to
compensate for overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. That practice,
however, increases the likelihood that bacteria harmful to humans will
become resistant to antibiotics and cause infections that are more diffi-
cult to treat. To maintain the effectiveness of those invaluable drugs for
human medicine, Congress should ban the routine feeding of medically
important antibiotics to livestock. Indeed, scientific research and a few
major producers have found that feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens,
hogs over 50 pounds, and grass-fed cattle is largely unnecessary. A ban, as
likely would occur if pending bipartisan legislation (S.742) were to pass,
would not prevent farmers and ranchers from using antibiotics to treat
sick animals.

7. Stop Promoting Unhealthy Meat and Dairy Foods
The beef, pork, dairy, and egg industries, with administrative assistance
from the USDA, “tax” themselves to raise war chests for advertising
(for example, “Pork–The Other White Meat,” celebrity “milk mustache”
ads, “Beef Gives Strength,” “The Incredible Edible Egg”) and research.
Together, those industries
spend tens of millions of
dollars annually promot-
ing their products—a sum
that dwarfs what the govern-
ment and industry spend to
promote the consumption of
fruits, vegetables, and whole
grains. Although some of the
advertising features lower-fat
types of meat and milk, all
of it serves as an advertise-
ment for foods that contribute
to health and environmental
problems. It is hypocritical for
the government to facilitate
the promotion of foods that
are inconsistent with its own
dietary guidelines. Congress
should eliminate federal involvement in the milk, cheese, beef, pork, and
egg programs or limit the advertising to the healthiest products.


8. More Healthful Meals at Government-Run Facilities
Federal, state, and local governments directly feed millions of people every
day at schools, government cafeterias, military bases, prisons, and hospi-
tals. Government could easily promote healthier diets at those facilities by
providing more dishes based on fruits, vegetables, beans, and whole grains.
Animal products served should be low in fat and salt and made from ani-
mals raised humanely and without medically important antibiotics. Nutri-
tion information should be provided. Such government efforts would pro-
mote health; create markets for healthier foods; and set an example for other
large employers, hospitals, colleges, and restaurants.

Improving the Environment
A nation’s stewardship of the environment reflects its consideration of
future generations. Today, though, farmers apply copious amounts of fertil-
izer and pesticides to vast acreages of crops destined for animal feed, pollut-
ing the environment and possibly harming wildlife, farmworkers, and con-
sumers. Raising large numbers of cattle, hogs, and poultry in concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) generates air and water pollution.
Numerous state and federal laws are aimed at protecting the environ-
ment, but some of those laws have limited applicability to agriculture. More-
over, in its regulation of the industry, the federal government sometimes
has gone in the wrong direction: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has exempted some 14,000 poultry, egg, dairy, and hog farms from
potential fines of up to $27,500 per day for polluting the air or water with
animal manure.5
To tackle the noxious problems caused by CAFOs, local and national
citizens’ groups, including Public Citizen and Global Resource Action
Center for the Environment, are seeking to stop the building of new large
animal feeding operations. In 2003 the American Public Health Association
joined in, urging federal, state, and local governments to impose a morato-
rium on new CAFOs until adequate scientific data on the “risks to public
health have been collected and uncertainties resolved.”6 Counties in Iowa,
Missouri, North Carolina, and other states where the hog industry has been
most aggressive are beginning to approve moratoriums on CAFOs.
Shifting to a more plant-based diet is one sure way to lessen numerous
environmental burdens. But since not everyone is going to do that, federal
and state governments should adopt new policies to protect the environ-
ment from large-scale animal agriculture. The following measures also
would nudge people in a more plant-based direction by slightly increasing
the costs of producing beef, pork, poultry, eggs, and milk. After all, it is only


fair that livestock producers—and consumers of animal products—bear the
full economic costs of their activities. Even the Farm Foundation, which
is supported by the cattle, hog, and other industries, acknowledges that
“reflecting the true cost and value of manure and byproducts in prices of
products or services might provide an incentive for producers and proces-
sors to adopt systems that maximize profits while being environmentally
friendly.”7

1. Prevent Air Pollution from Factory Farms
Factory farms that raise cattle, hogs, and poultry are major air polluters.
Governments should limit the density and total number of animals. The
EPA should aggressively enforce the Clean Air Act, Superfund (a waste
abatement program), and Community Right-to-Know laws as they apply
to CAFOs.

2. Prevent Water Pollution from Factory Farms
In its place, nu-
trient-rich ma-
nure is a valu-
able resource.
But the 1 trillion
pounds of ani-
mal waste gen-
erated by animal
feeding opera-
tions frequently
pollutes nearby
streams and riv-
ers.8 When ma-
nure lagoons on
hog farms are breached—because of major storms, equipment breakdowns,
or operational errors—the waste pollutes groundwater and nearby water-
ways, contaminating the water and killing fish. In addition, nutrients in an-
imal manure applied to cropland often pollute waterways.
 Water pollution would be best mitigated by raising fewer animals and
limiting the size of CAFOs. Short of that, the EPA has mandated that
CAFOs, as well as smaller or less-intensive feeding operations likely to
cause water pollution, obtain permits to limit pollution. Those permits
include comprehensive nutrient management plans, the requirements of
which are designed by the USDA and vary by state. Management plans


are not now, but should be, subject to public review to promote enforce-
ment. The plans also do little to stop the construction or operation of
open-air lagoons of dirty, smelly manure. Stringent Clean Water Act
permits with enforceable provisions should be used to prevent pollution
from CAFOs’ manure storage facilities and when the manure is spread
or sprayed on fields. Considering how troublesome manure lagoons have
been, the EPA could ban ones over a certain size.
 The USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) gives
individual CAFOs up to $450,000 to cover the cost of building, improv-
ing, or upgrading their manure lagoons and effluent sprayfields. How-
ever, as the New York Times put it, that largesse helps farmers “comply
with regulations that don’t mean much to begin with.”9 EQIP grants
encourage the use of large-scale lagoons and sprayfield systems, because
they do not limit the size of the operations that receive the grants. EQIP
support should be limited to smaller, less environmentally harmful live-
stock facilities.
 To prevent phosphorus pollution of waterways, the USDA should
encourage farmers to use more appropriate animal feed. Two com-
mon approaches are reducing phosphorus levels in feed and adding the
enzyme phytase, which breaks down the phosphorus-rich phytic acid in
feed and enables animals to absorb more phosphorus. Adding phytase
to swine and poultry feed reduces the phosphorus content of manure
by as much as 25 to 50 percent.10 Dairy farmers, who commonly add too
much phosphorus (and nitrogen) to feed, could reduce costs and runoff
substantially if they cut back.11
 Government agencies generally give broad discretion to producers
to create and implement nutrient management plans, though some
states might impose more stringent requirements. Only Wisconsin has
allowed nutrient feed-management changes to qualify for funding from
the USDA’s EQIP.12 Other states should do the same.
 Hormones—including natural ones and the growth hormones implanted
in beef cattle—have been found in waterways downstream from feed-
lots. Initial studies show that the minuscule amounts of hormones cause
malformations in fish. Greatly decreasing the number and density of cat-
tle in CAFOs would solve the environmental problem.

3. Reduce Water Use
The enormous amounts of (mostly irrigation) water that are used to pro-
duce feed grains erode soil, pollute water, deplete groundwater reservoirs,
and poison fish. Ultimately, over-irrigation can deplete water of oxygen and
harm wildlife in and around ponds and lakes.


 Irrigation subsidies encourage farmers to waste water and cultivate poor-
quality land where irrigation contributes to water-quality problems. From
1902 to 1986, irriga-
tion subsidies cost
taxpayers as much
as $70 billion. The
subsidies just to
farmers in Califor-
nia’s Central Valley
Project now amount
to $400 million a
year, mostly going
to large farmers, ac-
cording to the En-
vironmental Work-
ing Group.13 Those subsidies should be reduced or eliminated. Currently,
many water rate structures charge farmers on a per-acre basis regardless
of water use. Water deliveries to farms should be measured and farmers
charged according to how much water they use.
 Federal loans or grants should be available to encourage farmers to use
more efficient irrigation systems. A portion of farm subsidies could be
withheld from farmers who waste water.

4. Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Use
Gargantuan quantities of fertilizer and smaller quantities of pesticides
help maximize yields of feed grains and other crops but exact a cost from
the environment and health. The mining of minerals and manufacture of
fertilizer require huge amounts of energy and nonrenewable resources
and pollute the air and water. Using the fertilizer generates more air and
water pollution. Pesticides may harm workers and nearby residents, as
well as non-target animals and plants. And consumers, of course, would
prefer not to have pesticide residues in their food. Eating fewer animal
products would reduce the harm from pesticides and fertilizer (though
the benefits would be slightly reduced because more food crops would
have to be produced). Government actions to lessen the problems include
the following.
 The USDA and state departments of agriculture should mount intensive
programs to encourage feed-grain producers (and other farmers) to slash
their use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer by using techniques rang-
ing from integrated pest management to organic farming to biotechnol-


ogy. Though agriculture departments have long belittled organic agri-
culture, they are beginning to see that thousands of small farmers are
thriving by growing fruits, vegetables, grains, and livestock for that
exploding niche market. Just as the European Union provides about
$500 million a year in subsidies to organize farmers, states could pro-
vide loans, grants, or tax breaks (see next item) to help farmers get off the
chemical treadmill.14
 Taxing fertilizers and pesticides would internalize some of their envi-
ronmental costs and reduce their use. Even a small tax, which would
not affect food prices, would raise signif-
icant revenues to fund research projects
and support improved farming practices.
But currently, many farm states actually
exempt pesticides and fertilizers from
sales taxes, at a cost to the states of hun-
dreds of millions of dollars each year.15
The Soil and Water Conservation Soci-
ety estimates that a 5 percent federal tax
Insecticides all too often kill harmless
on agricultural fertilizers and chemicals
and helpful insects, such as ladybugs, could raise $1 billion annually.16 The key is
along with pests.
to earmark tax revenues for environmen-
tal and health programs. Nebraska uses pesticide registration fees ($1.3
million in 2003) to fund conservation programs, including installation
of conservation buffers, weed control, and water quality improvements.
Iowa’s Groundwater Protection Act taxes nitrogen fertilizer (75 cents
per ton) and imposes pesticide registration fees to support conservation
activities. In 2001, the state’s fertilizer tax raised $913,000, and its pesti-
cide fees raised $2.7 million, with 35 percent of the revenue allocated to
the Leopold Cen-
ter for Sustainable
Agriculture and
the remainder to
solid waste and
agricultural health
programs.17
 Even though the
2002 Farm Bill
requires producers
to reduce soil ero-
sion (through the
USDA’s Conserva-


tion Compliance provisions) and protect wetlands (under the Swamp-
buster provisions) in order to receive subsidies, no such requirement
directly protects water quality. Subsidies could be made contingent
upon farmers’ reducing fertilizer and pesticide inputs to appropriate
levels.
 The Netherlands, in response to a European Union directive aimed at
protecting the environment, has tested several approaches to limiting
nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer and manure. It recently imple-
mented a complex system of application limits. The USDA could follow
that example and seek congressional authority to sponsor pilot projects
that would limit fertilizer and manure use.18

5. Reduce Feed Grain Usage
America’s livestock industry relies heavily on feeding practices designed to
bring meat and dairy products to market as quickly and cheaply as possible.
The effects of those feeding
practices on the environment,
the animals, and the nutrient
content of foods have received
scant attention. Reducing the
amount of grain in cattle feed
(and allowing chickens and
pigs to obtain at least some
of their food from barnyards
and pastures) would deliver
healthier products to consum-
ers, protect the environment, and protect the animals’ welfare. Consumers
could help move the country in that direction by eating fewer animal prod-
ucts or, at the very least, choosing grass-fed beef.
 Congress should provide greater funding for programs that pay feed-
grain farmers to remove large areas of land, especially environmen-
tally sensitive land, from production. Slightly higher grain prices might
slightly reduce the amount of grain fed to cattle.
 The high-grain diets fed to cattle at feedlots makes the cattle sick;
increases the fat content of the beef; and necessitates the use of fertilizer,
water, pesticides, and land to produce the grain. To protect people, cattle,
and the environment, the USDA or FDA should set standards that would
limit the grain content of the feed and the length of time cattle eat it.
 The USDA should develop a labeling system that would identify meat,
poultry, and milk produced in an environmentally friendly and humane


Cheap Corn: Indirect Subsidy to Livestock Producers

Since the Depression, the federal government has maintained farm programs to
keep farmers afloat and supplies and prices stable. The traditional policies were
changed radically in 1996, when Congress passed the Freedom to Farm legislation.
This simplified description of farm programs highlights some key points.19

Before 1996, corn and several other major crops had price floors. The government
used a combination of crop-storage programs and acreage limitations to support
the prices for those crops. Grain merchants such as Cargill and food processors
such as General Mills, as well as foreign buyers, had to pay at least the floor prices
for grains. The 1996 law ended most planting restrictions and replaced price sup-
ports with government payments.

One subsidy consists of direct payments to farmers regardless of the amount of
crops produced. The original goal was to phase out those payments over several
years.

A second subsidy, using so-called loan deficiency payments (the loans actually
are not intended to be repaid), pays farmers the difference between the market
price and the “support price” for corn, wheat, cotton, and other “program crops.”
Before 1996, if the support price, also called the loan rate, was $2.00 per bushel,
farmers were essentially assured that they would receive at least $2.00 per bushel
for their grain. Now, with the use of loan deficiency payments, the farmer receives


the market price, for example $1.50 per bushel, plus the 50-cent difference from
the government. Those purchasing grain pay $1.50 per bushel (not $2.00), which
is well below the cost of producing the grain. That is, the purchasers of the grain
buy the grain at a subsidized price.

That system worked well while market prices were high, but when prices dipped
a couple of years after the 1996 farm bill was passed, Congress began providing
farmers with emergency subsidies—billions and billions of dollars’ worth of sub-
sidies. Without a program to reduce production, such as acreage set-asides, the
government did not possess any policy tools to boost crop prices. The 2002 farm
legislation replaced ad hoc emergency payments with a third subsidy that kicks in
when prices are low.

That set of three subsidies helps farmers when harvests are large and prices are
low. Between 1995 and 2004, according to the Environmental Working Group, corn
growers “farmed the government” for $42 billion; subsidies for all crops totaled
$144 billion. In 2005 alone, farm subsidies totaled $23 billion. Importantly, those
subsidies constitute a multibillion-dollar-a-year boon not just to farmers, but also
to livestock growers, food processors, and exporters.

One solution to costly subsidies would be to return to price floors. That would
ensure that buyers paid a price that reflected the actual direct costs of growing
corn (though not the costs of pollution). The higher price of animal feed would
encourage the cattle industry to reduce the time cattle spent at feedlots and
might increase slightly the cost of beef and, somewhat more so, the cost of pork
and chicken.

To keep the price of corn up near the target price, production might have to
be kept down by limiting the acreage planted in corn, expanding programs that
protected environmentally sensitive land, and designating acreage that had to
be planted in crops, such as switchgrass, that could be burned or converted to
ethanol for cost-efficient energy. In addition, the government should, as it used
to do, ensure reserves of enough wheat, corn, and other crops to protect against
droughts or other calamities here or abroad.

Some of the billions of dollars saved by changing farm subsidy programs (including
limiting payments to large farmers) should be reinvested in the farming commu-
nity and food policies. Programs should help farmers reduce their use of fertil-
izer and pesticides, transition to organic methods, and raise pasture-fed cattle.
Smaller farmers, especially ones within driving distance of major cities, should be
helped to sell produce directly to supermarkets, schools, and consumers at farm-
ers’ markets. The tiny Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program that provides free daily
snacks to children in a couple of hundred schools should be greatly expanded.


manner. (In 2006, the USDA took a step in that direction by proposing a
definition for “grass-fed” cattle and sheep.)

6. Prevent Overgrazing on Public Lands
Overgrazing of cattle on public lands contributes to riparian damage (that
is, damage to surrounding waterways), erosion and water pollution, and
harm to endangered species. Ranchers who use public lands in the West
save as much as $500 million a year because the federal government absorbs
most of the costs of managing the land.20 Grazing fees should be increased
to reflect the true cost to the government.
Another approach would be to buy out ranchers’ grazing rights through
a voluntary program. A 2003 federal buy-out bill—the Voluntary Grazing
Buyout Act—had strong support from environmental, conservation, and
animal welfare organizations, and some ranchers, but died because of
opposition from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Improving Animal Welfare
How a nation treats farm animals is a good gauge of that nation’s com-
passion. Most animals raised on contemporary factory farms live in tiny
spaces; breathe foul air; wallow in their own manure; eat unnatural diets;


U.K. Farm Animal Welfare Council’s
5 Freedoms23
The welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state and we consider
that good animal welfare implies both fitness and a sense of well-being. Any ani-
mal kept by man must, at least, be protected from unnecessary suffering.…

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst—by ready access to fresh water and a diet
to maintain full health and vigour.
2. Freedom from Discomfort—by providing an appropriate environment includ-
ing shelter and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease—by prevention or rapid diagnosis and
treatment.
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour—by providing sufficient space, proper
facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.
5. Freedom from Fear and Distress—by ensuring conditions and treatment
which avoid mental suffering.

or endure branding, castration, debeaking, or de-tailing. In some cases, ani-
mals are intentionally harmed—or even tortured—by workers.
New laws must be adopted and vigorously enforced to ensure that
all animals are raised and handled humanely, from birth to slaughter (see
“U.K. Farm Animal Welfare Council’s 5 Freedoms,” above). Recent laws in
California, to prohibit the force-feeding of ducks and geese for foie gras,
and in Florida, banning the housing of pregnant sows in cramped crates,
demonstrate broad public support for protecting farm animals. Overseas,
sow gestation crates have been banned in the United Kingdom and are
being phased out in the European Union and New Zealand. Similarly, layer
hen battery cages were banned in Switzerland 10 years ago and are being
phased out in the European Union.21
Reforms aimed at farm practices and to encourage consumer purchase
of foods made from humanely raised animals certainly would improve
animal welfare. Matthew Scully, author of Dominion: The Power of Man, the
Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, a book pleading for more humane
treatment of animals, proposed a federal Humane Farming Act that “would
explicitly recognize animals as sentient beings and not as mere commodi-
ties or merchandise.”22 The problems discussed in Argument #6 (“Less
Animal Suffering”) suggest that such a law should:
 Impose ample space requirements to prevent crowding of farm animals
and eliminate restrictive caging of hogs, layer hens, and veal calves.


 Regulate conditions such as temperature, water, and space per animal on
the trucks and railroad cars that transport animals from farm to farm or
to feedlots and the slaughterhouse.
 Slow slaughterhouse lines to help ensure that the animals are stunned
properly.
 Ensure that slaughterhouse operators and workers abide by the federal
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, provide for improved enforcement
of that law by the USDA, and extend the law to include poultry.
 Establish a reliable labeling scheme to encourage consumers to buy meat,
dairy products, and eggs from more-humanely raised animals and to
inform consumers when animals are raised on factory farms.
 Limit the amount of grain in feed and the duration of grain feeding at
cattle feedlots. Doing that also would lessen the need for grain and anti-
biotics, reduce pollution from feedlots, and probably lead to lower-fat
beef.
 Require cattle to be identified with ear tags or other devices. That would
mitigate the need for hot-iron branding and also help health officials
identify animals infected with dangerous bacteria or the prions that
cause mad cow disease.
 Require husbandry and cleanliness standards to reduce use of
antibiotics.
States, too, should enforce their animal cruelty laws as they apply to
farm animals or amend laws that exempt farm animals from protection.
In the absence of federal action, states should prohibit practices such as
debeaking and forced molting of chickens, hot-iron branding of cattle, and
de-tailing of hogs.
Such measures would modestly raise the price of animal products, but
any society that considers itself civilized should ensure that farm animals
are treated humanely.

Appendix A.
A Bestiary of Foodborne Pathogens

F
arm animals are the source of at least one out of five foodborne ill-
nesses, and possibly many more. They cause illnesses either directly
(from contaminated meat, poultry, dairy, or egg products) or indirectly
(from fruits and vegetables that have been contaminated with manure). You
can’t tell the players without a scorecard, so here are profiles of some of the
leading causes of food poisoning.

Campylobacter jejuni
As the leading cause of foodborne illness in the United States, Campylo-
bacter causes 2.4 million sicknesses and over 100 deaths each year.1 The
main symptom of campylobacteriosis is diarrhea that lasts up to 10 days;
it recurs in one out of four people.2 In severe cases, people can die from
septicemia (a bacterial infection in the blood) or hemolytic uremic syn-
drome (a cause of short-term kidney failure in children, usually following
an infection in the digestive system). Longer-term effects of some infec-
tions include arthritis; meningitis (an inflammation of the central nervous
system); colitis, which results in ulcers in the large intestine; and cholecys-
titis (inflammation of the gallbladder). Each year, several thousand peo-
ple who had contracted campylobacteriosis later develop Guillain-Barré

171


Syndrome, an autoimmune disorder that causes severe weakness and even
paralysis.3
Campylobacter in feces, water, and urine remains viable at refrigerator
temperatures for several weeks.4 It thrives on the manure-strewn floors of
factory farms, and the animals living there are regularly infected.
Campylobacter is mainly found in poultry and sometimes in cattle.
Healthy chickens and turkeys can carry the bacteria, which spread eas-
ily through flocks. A 1999 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study
found Campylobacter in over 90 percent of poultry.5 During slaughter, bac-
teria in the intestines may contaminate the meat, so it was not surprising
that researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
found that 44 percent of chickens at supermarkets were contaminated
with Campylobacter.6 Even more alarming, 24 percent of the Campylobacter
isolates were resistant to the powerful antibiotics—fluoroquinolones—that
are often a last resort for treating food-poisoning victims. (Those antibiotics
are no longer allowed to treat poultry flocks; see “Factory Farming’s Anti-
biotic Crutch,” p. 68.) Despite all the concerns about foodborne illnesses,
illness rates showed little change between 1999 and 2004.7

Clostridium perfringens
About 250,000 cases of food poisoning—but only a handful of deaths—are
caused each year by Clostridium perfringens. That bacterium is normally
found in the intestinal tracts of cattle, hogs, poultry, and fish, as well as in
humans, and it is widely distributed in soil. Because C. perfringens produces
spores that can survive in boiling water, it is often present after cooking,
and bacterial populations may increase while foods cool. Fully cooked meat
and gravy are the most common causes of infections. Symptoms include
severe abdominal cramps and diarrhea lasting for up to two weeks. Rarely,
the infection may progress to the potentially fatal pig-bel syndrome, which
destroys the intestines.8

Escherichia coli
E. coli is a natural and abundant resident of the intestinal tract of humans
and most other mammals. In a healthy person, the bacteria can help pre-
vent disease—particularly foodborne illnesses—by out-competing patho-
gens for nutrients. But certain subspecies of E. coli—particularly E. coli O157:
H7—cause gruesome foodborne illnesses.
E. coli O157:H7 produces a toxin that damages the lining of the intes-
tine, causing bloody diarrhea. The infection may lead to kidney failure and
death. Each year, E. coli O157:H7 and its close relatives cause roughly 94,000

Appendix A. A Bestiary of Foodborne Pathogens • 173

illnesses and kill about 80 people.9 Infections tend to be most severe in chil-
dren. That was the case in 1993 when contaminated beef patties served at
Jack in the Box restaurants were linked to more than 600 illnesses and the
deaths of four young children.10
E. coli O157:H7 resides in up to 6 percent of cattle and one-third of sheep.
The bug typically infects humans through meat contaminated at slaughter-
houses. During evisceration, workers may damage the intestine, releasing
its bacteria-laden contents onto meat.11 The nasty germ also can spread
from cattle hides contaminated with manure to slaughterhouse workers
and equipment—and then to meat.12 Thanks in part to the beef industry’s
vigorous efforts to clean up its operations, illnesses caused by E. coli O157:
H7 declined by 42 percent between 2002 and 2004.13 Still, in 2003, 60 percent
of the nation’s largest meat plants failed to abide by federal regulations.14
These germs can infect people through routes other than food. After
a group of schoolchildren visited a Pennsylvania dairy farm, 51 children
were sickened by a strain of E. coli O157:H7 identical to that found in cattle
on the farm.15 And at a county fair in New York, runoff from a dairy barn
contaminated the unchlorinated water supply, sickening 1,000 people with
E. coli O157:H7 and causing two deaths.16

Listeria
Listeria monocytogenes is one of the deadliest foodborne pathogens. The CDC
estimates that Listeria causes 2,500 flu-like illnesses each year—20 percent of
which are fatal.17 The latest data indicate that illness rates stayed the same
between 2000 and 2004.18
Listeria is widely distributed in the environment and is a hardy bac-
terium that can survive freezing, drying, and heat remarkably well. And,
increasing its threat, Listeria can grow at refrigerator temperatures.19
Livestock may get infected by eating contaminated feed.20 Most human
infections result from tainted meat, though vegetables can be contaminated
by Listeria in the soil, irrigation water, or manure used as fertilizer.21
Listeria is particularly harmful to people who are immunosuppressed,
such as the elderly, those with organ transplants, and people with HIV. At
highest risk, however, are pregnant women. Because of hormonal effects on
the immune system during pregnancy, pregnant women are 20 times more
likely to contract a Listeria infection than other people and account for about
one-third of all cases.22 Listeria can cross the placental barrier and infect
the developing fetus, which often results in miscarriages and stillbirths. It
can also cause meningitis, which, if the child survives, may result in cere-
bral palsy or other chronic neurological illnesses. Pregnant women should


not eat the foods most likely to be contaminated: hot dogs, deli meats, soft
cheeses, paté, and smoked seafood.23

Mad Cow Disease
Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) infects the
brains of cattle, resulting in a cerebrum so riddled with holes that it resem-
bles a sponge. Infected cattle have trouble standing and walking, hence the
term “mad.” As of April 2006, only eight cases of mad cow disease have
been confirmed in North America—five in Canada and three in the United
States—but the human form of the disease (variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob dis-
ease, or vCJD) is so horrible that it has received enormous attention in the
media, and deserved attention from government and industry.
People can suffer vCJD by eating contaminated beef. The infectious
agents—called prions (improperly folded proteins)—cause brain decay
similar to that seen in cattle.24 Victims suffer memory loss, impaired coordi-
nation, and hallucinations, and they invariably die. In the United Kingdom,
the epicenter of mad cow disease, 3.7 million cattle were slaughtered to stop
its spread.25 As of May 2006, 155 Britons had died from the disease (and
fewer than 20 in other countries).26
Several factors contribute to prions’ harmfulness. First, prions have
a disturbing ability to jump from one species to another, including cattle,
humans, sheep, and domestic cats.27 Also, prions are far hardier than bacte-
ria and viruses. They can withstand boiling, the even higher temperatures
used for sterilizing medical equipment, freezing, irradiation, and most
acids and bases.28
BSE is believed to have spread by adding rendered leftover meat and
bones of cattle carcasses to cattle feed as a source of protein.29 A single
infected cow could infect a large and geographically diverse population of
other cows.
The risk to humans of consuming infectious meat is increased by some
processors’ use of advanced meat recovery (AMR). That mechanical process
extracts hard-to-reach bits of meat from the bones after most of the meat
has been removed by hand. Because spinal columns are often processed
in AMR equipment, the resulting meat may contain high-risk spinal and
central nervous system tissue. In 2003, the USDA found such tissue in meat
from more than 75 percent of the plants using AMR equipment. Though
AMR use is declining, millions of pounds of AMR-recovered beef are used
each year in such products as ground beef, meatballs, and taco filling.30
Fortunately, the chances of contracting vCJD in the United States are
infinitesimal, because so few cattle are infected. Increasingly stringent

Appendix A. A Bestiary of Foodborne Pathogens • 175

controls are reducing the risk even further. Only one confirmed case has
occurred in the United States, and that involved a person who spent time
in the United Kingdom when mad cow disease was at its height. That also
was true of most of the infected individuals in other countries.31 Eating beef
is far likelier to cause heart disease than vCJD.

Salmonella
A Salmonella infection can be contracted only by eating contaminated
food.32 Infections cause flu-like symptoms—including vomiting, diarrhea,
and fever—in over 1 million Americans each year. Salmonella kills about 600
Americans each year, with its victims generally being 65 or older.33 Rarely,
salmonellosis causes Reiter’s syndrome, a form of arthritis.34 Illness rates
have barely changed over the past 10 years.35
Salmonella can live in the digestive tracts of most vertebrates, includ-
ing cattle, hogs, and poultry. It can inhabit the ovaries of laying hens, con-
taminating their eggs before the shells form. On hog farms, Salmonella can
survive for months in manure slurry.36
The USDA found Salmonella in over half of all large feedlots, 5 percent
of dairy cows on farms, and 15 percent of the dairy cows sold at livestock
auctions. The USDA also found Salmonella in 9 percent of broiler chickens
and 38 percent of hog operations.37
Antibiotic resistance increases the harmfulness of Salmonella infections,
with some strains being resistant to several different antibiotics. A study by
the Food and Drug Administration and the University of Maryland found
that 20 percent of samples of ground chicken, beef, turkey, and pork were
contaminated with Salmonella, and 84 percent of those bacteria were resis-
tant to at least one antibiotic.38
In recent years, the biggest Salmonella problem has been in eggs.39 About
1 out of every 20,000 eggs is contaminated with Salmonella.40 Assuming that
half the eggs are eaten fresh, Americans have about a 1 in 75 chance of
being exposed to Salmonella through eggs over the course of a year. Proper
handling and cooking can usually kill the germs.
The practice of forced molting of layer hens accelerates the spread of
Salmonella. When they are deprived of food, water, and light to prolong
their productive lives, molted hens are 100 to 1,000 times more susceptible
to Salmonella infection than unmolted birds.41

Staphylococcus
Over 185,000 cases of food poisoning each year are caused by Staphylococ-
cus. Meat, poultry, and dairy products are the most common food causes


of those infections. Because Staphylococcus is often present on human skin,
poor sanitation among food handlers is probably the primary problem.
However, animals also carry Staphylococcus, and this bug has been found in
the air around hog barns and on the hides of most livestock.42
Staphylococcus’s toxin may be produced in food before cooking, and it is
stable at high temperatures. Symptoms of infection include nausea, vomit-
ing, headache, muscle cramps, and fluctuations in blood pressure and pulse
rate. Symptoms usually last about two days.43

Toxoplasma gondii
Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that causes about 115,000 foodborne illnesses
each year, killing 375 people. Toxoplasmosis occurs when T. gondii infects
people who eat undercooked pork, lamb, or other meats or who improperly
handle those foods during preparation. The infection can also occur through
exposure to cat feces. Minor infections resemble the flu, but T. gondii also can
enter the central nervous system, damaging the eyes or brain.44 In pregnant
women, infections can cause miscarriages or birth defects.45

Appendix B.
Eating Green Internet Resources

T
hese web sites will provide a wealth of information on the topics cov-
ered in Six Arguments for a Greener Diet. Explore!

 Center for Science in the Public www.cspinet.org
Interest www.eatinggreen.org

Agriculture
 U.S. Department of Agriculture www.usda.gov
(Agricultural Research Service,
Economic Research Service, food
consumption data, etc.)

 GRACE Factory Farm Project www.factoryfarm.org
— Web animated movie www.themeatrix2.com

 Sierra Club (factory farms) www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/

177


Animal welfare
 Compassion in World Farming www.ciwf.org.uk/

 Compassion Over Killing www.cok.net

 Farm Sanctuary www.farmsanctuary.org; www.factoryfarming.com

 Humane Society of the United www.hsus.org
States

 People for the Ethical Treatment www.GoVeg.com;
of Animals’ vegetarian campaign www.Meat.org (video)

Antibiotics
 Alliance for the Prudent Use of www.apua.org
Antibiotics
 Keep Antibiotics Working www.keepantibioticsworking.org

Environment
 Environmental Defense (global www.environmentaldefense.org
warming, air and water pollu-
tion, toxic chemicals)

 Environmental Working Group www.ewg.org
(farm subsidies, chemical con-
taminants)

 Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Sea- www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp
food Watch (choosing safe and
abundant seafood)

 Natural Resources Defense www.nrdc.org
Council (pesticides, land use,
global warming)

 U.S. Environmental Protection www.epa.gov
Agency (pesticides, air and
water pollution, etc.)

Nutrition and health
 American Institute for Cancer www.aicr.org
Research (diet and cancer;
recipes)

 Centers for Disease Control
— NHANES dietary intake studies www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
— healthy recipes www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/5aday/recipes/
index.htm

Appendix B. Internet Resources for Eating Green • 179

 5 A Day (produce industry’s web www.5aday.com
site, with recipes)

 Harvard School of Public www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
Health’s “Nutrition Source” (reli-
able, independent source of
information)

 National Institutes of Health
— Medline Plus (sensible, main- www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/
stream information)
— PubMed (abstracts of medical www.pubmed.gov
research)

 U.S. Department of Agriculture www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/
resources (Dietary Guidelines for www.nutrition.gov
Americans, Food Guide Pyramid,
food safety)
— Nutritional value of foods www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/HG72/
hg72_2002.pdf
— Food and nutrient consumption www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/
FoodAvailIndex.htm

 U.S. Food and Drug www.fda.gov
Administration (nutrition
labeling, antibiotics used in
livestock, contaminants in food)

Vegetarian diets
 Earthsave www.earthsave.org

 Meatless Monday www.meatlessmonday.org

 Physicians Committee for www.pcrm.org
Responsible Medicine

 Vegetarian Resource Group www.vrg.org/

 Vegsource www.vegsource.com

Where to buy or eat food that is locally grown or produced humanely
 Community-supported agriculture www.localharvest.org/csa/
(subscriptions for local produce)

 Farmers’ markets www.localharvest.org
ww.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/

 Humane Farm Animal Care www.certifiedhumane.org

 Locally grown meats www.eatwellguide.com

Notes

Preface: Greener Diets for a Healthier World (pp. vii–xiv)
1. G. Eshel and P. Martin, “Diet, energy, and global warming,” Earth Interactions (2005)
10(9):1–17.
2. I. Hoffmann, “Ecological impact of a high-meat, low-meat and ovo-lacto vegetarian
diet,” presentation at the Fourth International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition, Loma
Linda, CA, Apr. 2002.
3. M. Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (East Rutherford, NJ:
Penguin Press, 2006).
4. L.R. Brown, “Running on empty,” Forum Appl Res Pub Pol (2001) 16(1):6–8.
5. R. Naylor, H. Steinfeld, W. Falcon, et al., “Losing the links between livestock and land,”
Science (2005) Dec. 9:1621–22.

The Fatted Steer (pp. 3–13)
1. Omaha Steaks, www.omahasteaks.com; Morton’s Steakhouse, www.mortons.com; and
Ultimate Entree, www.ultimateentree.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=prime.
2. Shula’s, www.certifiedangusbeef.com/shulas/shula1.html.
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS), “Working
towards a consistently tender steak,” Agr Res (2005) 53(2):8–9; www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/
archive/feb05/steak0205.htm.
4. G. Fry, “The importance of intramuscular fat” (Rose Bud, AR: Bovine Consulting and
Engineering), www.bovineengineering.com/impt_intra_musc_fat.html.

181


5. USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA AMS), “National summary of meats
graded, fiscal year 2004,” www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mgc/Reports/MNFY04.pdf.
6. USDA AMS, “Comparison of certified beef programs” (2006), www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/
certprog/industry.htm.
7. USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS), “Inspection grading – what
are the differences?,” safe food handling fact sheet, www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/
Inspection__Grading/index.asp.
8. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, “Beef By Products Usage” (1996), www.beef.org/
uDocs/Beef%20By%20Products%20Usage%201996.doc.
9. I.B. Mandell, J.G. Buchanan-Smith, and C.P. Campbell, “Effects of forage vs grain feeding
on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and beef quality in Limousin-cross
steers when time on feed is controlled,” J Anim Sci (1998) 76:2619–30.
10. S.P. Greiner, Beef Cattle Breeds and Biological Types, Publication No. 400–803 (Blacksburg,
VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2002), www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/beef/400–803/400–803.
html.
11. T.E. Engle and J.W. Spears, “Effect of finishing system (feedlot or pasture), high-oil maize,
and copper on conjugated linoleic acid and other fatty acids in muscle of finishing steer,”
Anim Sci (2004) 78:261–69.
12. Mandell, Buchanan-Smith, and Campbell, “Effects of forage.”
13. Engle and Spears, “Effect of finishing system.”
14. F.L. Laborde, I.B. Mandell, J.J. Tosh, et al., “Breed effects on growth performance, carcass
characteristics, fatty acid composition, and palatability attributes in finishing steers,”
J Anim Sci (2001) 79:355–65.
15. S.K. Duckett, D.G. Wagner, L.D. Yates, et al., “Effects of time on feed on beef nutrient
composition,” J Anim Sci (1993) 71:2079–88.
16. A useful summary of studies, which vary widely in design, comparing grass-fed and
grain-fed beef is presented in K. Clancy, Greener Pastures: How Grass-Fed Beef and Milk
Contribute to Healthy Eating (Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2006),
www.ucsusa.org.
17. Iowa Corn Fed, www.iowacornfed.com/.
18. P. Letheby, “Organic grass-fed beef: more than a niche?,” Grand Island Independent Aug. 1,
2003, www.theindependent.com/stories/080103/opi_pete01.shtml.
19. C. Kummer, “Back to grass,” Atlantic Monthly May 2003:138–42.
20. P. Brewer and C. Calkins, “Quality traits of grain- and grass-fed beef: a review,” 2003
Nebraska Beef Cattle Report (University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension), http://beef.
unl.edu/beefreports/200327.shtml.
21. I.B. Mandell, E.A. Gullett, J.W. Wilton, et al., “Effects of breed and dietary energy content
within breed on growth performance, carcass and chemical composition and beef
quality in Hereford and Simmental steers,” Can J An Sci (1998) 78:535–38.
22. T.R. Neely, C.L. Lorenzen, R.K. Miller, et al., “Beef customer satisfaction: role of cut, USDA
quality grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings,” J Anim Sci (1998) 76:1027–33.
23. K. Severson, “Give ‘em a chance, steers will eat grass,” New York Times June 1, 2005:F1.
24. Cattlemen’s Beef Board, “Beef: it’s what’s for dinner,” www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com/
index.asp.
25. American Grass Fed Beef, www.americangrassfedbeef.com/grass-fed-beef-steak.asp.
26. M. Pariza, “Perspective on the safety and effectiveness of conjugated linoleic acid,” Am
J Clin Nutr (2004) 79(6 Suppl):1132s–6s.

Notes • 183

27. J.M. Gaullier, J. Halse, K. Hoye, et al., “Supplementation with conjugated linoleic acid
for 24 months is well tolerated by and reduces body fat mass in healthy, overweight
humans,” J Nutr (2005) 135:778–84.
28. Y. Wang and P.J. Jones, “Dietary conjugated linoleic acid and body composition,” Am J
Clin Nutr (2004) 79:1153S–8S; and S. Desroches, P.Y. Chouinard, I. Galibois, et al., “Lack
of effect of dietary conjugated linoleic acids naturally incorporated into butter on the
lipid profile and body composition of overweight and obese men,” Am J Clin Nutr (2005)
82:309–19.
29. D.S. Kelley and K.L. Erickson, “Modulation of body composition and immune cell
functions by conjugated linoleic acid in humans and animal models: benefits vs. risks,”
Lipids (2003) 38:377–86; and D. Mozaffarian, M.B. Katan, A. Ascherio, et al., “Trans fatty
acids and cardiovascular disease,” N Engl J Med (2006) 345:1601–13.
30. Institute of Medicine (IOM), Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber,
Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, 2002), pp. 837–38.
31. See, for example, IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes; C. Ip and J.A. Scimeca, “Conjugated
linoleic acid and linoleic acid are distinctive modulators of mammary carcinogenesis,”
Nutr Cancer (1997) 27:131–35; and S. Vissonneau, A. Cesano, S.A. Tepper, et al.,
“Conjugated linoleic acid suppresses the growth of human breast adenocarcinoma cells
in SCID mice,” Anticancer Res (1997) 17:969–74.
32. T. Friend, “Fatty acid aids war on cancer,” USA Today Apr. 5, 1989:1D.
33. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes.
34. The fat in grass-fed beef contains about three to six times as much CLA as that in grain-
fed beef. Grass-fed beef has about half as much fat as grain-fed beef. Engle and Spears,
“Effect of finishing system”; F. Martz, M. Weiss, R. Kallenbach, et al., Conjugated Linoleic
Acid Content of Pasture Finished Beef and Implications for Human Diets (Columbia, MO:
University of Missouri, 2004), www.farmprofitability.org/research/beef/linoleic.htm;
D.C. Rule, K.S. Broughton, S.M. Shellito, et al., “Comparison of muscle fatty acid profiles
and cholesterol concentrations of bison, beef cattle, elk, and chicken,” J Anim Sci (2002)
80:1202–11; and C.S. Poulson, T.R. Dhiman, A.L. Ure, et al., “Conjugated linoleic acid
content of beef from cattle fed diets containing high grain, CLA, or raised on forages,”
Livestock Prod Sci (2004) 91:117–28.
35. Rule et al., “Comparison of muscle fatty acid profiles.”
36. P.M. Kris-Etherton, W.S. Harris, and L.J. Appel, “Omega-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular
disease: new recommendations from the American Heart Association,” Arterioscl Thromb
Vasc Biol (2003) 23:151–52; and C. Wang, M. Chung, A. Lichtenstein, et al., Effects of Omega-3
Fatty Acids on Cardiovascular Disease: Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.
94, AHRQ Publication No. 04-E009-1 (Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, 2004).
37. G. Gerster, “Can adults adequately convert alpha-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) to
eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) and docosapentaenoic (22:6n-3)?,” Int J Vitam Nutr Res
(1998) 68(3):159–73; G.C. Burdge and S.A. Wootton, “Conversion of alpha-linolenic acid
to eicosapentaenoic, docosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids in young women,”
Br J Nutr (2002) 88:411–20; and J.T. Brenna, “Efficiency of conversion of alpha-linolenic
acid to long chain n-3 fatty acids in man,” Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care (2002)
5:127–32.
38. P.M. Kris-Etherton, W.S. Harris, and L.J. Appel, “American Heart Association Scientific
Statement: fish consumption, fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids, and cardiovascular disease,”
Circulation (2002) 106:2747–57. [Published correction appears in Circulation (2003)
107:512.]


39. An uncooked grass-fed rib steak contains about 13 milligrams of eicosapentanenoic acid
(EPA) and 2 milligrams of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) per 3½ ounces. It also contains
about 33 milligrams of alpha-linolenic acid per serving, which provides the body
with no more than 8 milligrams of EPA and DHA. Thus, a 7-ounce uncooked rib steak
could provide, at most, about 46 milligrams of EPA and DHA. Certain other cuts have
twice as much omega-3s. J.D. Wood, M. Enser, A.V. Fisher, et al., “Animal nutrition and
metabolism group symposium on improving meat production for future needs,” Proc
Nutr Soc (1999) 58:363–70.
40. Cleveland Clinic, The Power of Fish (Cleveland, 2003), www.clevelandclinic.org/
heartcenter/pub/guide/prevention/nutrition/omega3.htm.
41. USDA, Economic Research Service, “Briefing room: land use, value, and management:
major uses of land” (2002), www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse/majorlandusechapter.
htm, accessed Dec. 27, 2005.
42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990–1998, EPA 236-R-00-001 (2000), http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/
globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BMQ76/$File/2000-inventory.pdf, p. K-8.
43. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Manure Production and Characteristics (St.
Joseph, MI, 2002), pp. 687–89.
44. K. Richardson and P.A. McKay, “On the farm, chickens come home to roost,” Wall Street
Journal Aug. 12, 2005:C1.

Argument #1. Less Chronic Disease and Better Overall Health
(pp. 17–57)
1. J.M. McGinnis and W.H. Foege, “The immediate vs the important,” JAMA (2004)
291:1263–64. Their estimated range for 2000 was 340,000 to 642,000 deaths per year, or 16
to 30 percent of all deaths.
2. M.M. Miniño, E. Arias, K.D. Kochanek, et al., “Deaths: final data for 2000,” Natl Vital Stat
Rep (2002) 50(15):1–120.
3. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, “Trends in intake of energy and macronutrients: United
States, 1971–2000,” MMWR (2004) 53:80–82; and J. Putnam, J. Allshouse, and L.S. Kantor,
“U.S. per capita food supply trends: more calories, refined carbohydrates, and fats,”
FoodReview (2002) 25(3):2–15.
4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications (USDA OC), Agriculture Fact
Book 2001–2002 (2003), www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.htm.
5. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS), Milk Production,
Disposition, and Income 2002 Summary (Washington, DC, 2003), p. 2; USDA NASS, Poultry
Slaughter 2002 Annual Summary (Washington, DC, 2003), p. 2; USDA NASS, Livestock
Slaughter 2002 Summary (Washington, DC, 2003), pp. 35, 41, 49; USDA NASS, Chickens and
Eggs 2003 Summary (Washington, DC, 2004), p. 2; and USDA, Economic Research Service
(USDA ERS), Food Availability database, www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/
FoodAvailQueriable.aspx#midForm.
6. USDA ERS, Food Availability (Per Capita) (2005), www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/
FoodAvailIndex.htm.
7. USDA OC, Agriculture Fact Book.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of
Agriculture (DHHS/USDA), Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2005), www.health.
gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/pdf/DGA2005.
9. P.A. Cotton, A.F. Subar, J.E. Friday, et al., “Dietary sources of nutrients among US
adults, 1994 to 1996,” J Am Diet Assoc (2004) 104:921–30. Food consumption data from

Notes • 185

USDA Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS), Food Surveys Research Group,
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals 1994–1996, www.barc.usda.gov/
bhnrc/foodsurvey/home.htm.
10. A. Keys, J.T. Anderson, and F. Grande, “Serum cholesterol response to changes in the
diet. IV. Particular saturated fatty acids in the diet,” Metabolism (1965) 65:776–87; D.M.
Hegsted, L.M. Ausman, J.A. Johnson, et al., “Dietary fat and serum lipids: an evaluation
of the experimental data,” Am J Clin Nutr (1993) 57:875–83; R.P. Mensink and M.B.
Katan, “Effect of dietary fatty acids on serum lipids and lipoproteins: a meta-analysis
of 27 trials,” Arterioscler Thromb (1992) 12:911–19; and P.M. Kris-Etherton, A.E. Binkoski,
G. Zhao, et al., “Dietary fat: assessing the evidence in support of a moderate-fat diet; the
benchmark based on lipoprotein metabolism,” Proc Nutr Soc (2002) 61(2):287–98.
11. J.E. Manson, H. Tosteson, P.M. Ridker, et al., “The primary prevention of myocardial
infarction,” N Engl J Med (1992) 326:1406–16.
12. M. Jacobson and H. D’Angelo, “Heart disease deaths caused by animal foods,”
unpublished report (Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest [CSPI],
2006). Estimates based on the four different research groups’ formulas ranged from
30,000 to 107,000 deaths per year.
13. The $1 trillion sum is the present value discounted at 3 percent. It is based on the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) estimate of the health and economic benefits of
lowering dietary levels of trans fat, which have adverse effects on blood cholesterol levels
and cause heart disease. See FDA, “Nutrition labeling,” Fed Reg (1999) 64:62746–825.
14. American Heart Association (AHA), Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: 2005 Update
(Dallas, 2005), p. 51; and L.S. Longwell, communications department, IMS Health, Inc.,
response to CSPI data request, Oct. 25, 2004.
15. Longwell, response.
16. American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures, 2004 (Atlanta, 2004); AHA, Heart
Disease and Stroke; American Diabetes Association, “Economic costs of diabetes in
the U.S. in 2002,” Diabetes Care (2003) 26:917–32; and E. Frazão, America’s Eating Habits:
Changes and Consequences, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750 (1999), www.ers.
usda.gov/publications/aib750/aib750a.pdf.
17. N.D. Barnard, A. Nicholson, and J.L. Howard, “The medical costs attributable to meat
consumption,” Prev Med (1995) 24:646–55 (adjusted to 2005 dollars by CSPI).
18. A.M. Wolf and G.A. Colditz, “Social and economic effects of body weight in the United
States,” Am J Clin Nutr (1996) 63(suppl):466S–69S (adjusted to 2005 dollars by CSPI); and
E.A. Finkelstein, I.C. Fiebelkorn, and G. Wang, “State-level estimates of annual medical
expenditures attributable to obesity,” Obes Res (2004) 12:18–24.
19. USDA ERS, Data: Food Guide Pyramid Servings (2005), www.ers.usda.gov/data/
foodconsumption/FoodGuideIndex.htm#servings.
20. J.F. Guthrie, Understanding Fruit and Vegetable Choices: Economic and
Behavioral Influences, Agriculture Information Bulletin 792-1, www.ers.usda.
gov/publications/aib792/aib792-1/aib792-1.pdf.
21. USDA ERS, Food Availability.
22. G.E. Fraser, Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease: Studies of Seventh-day Adventists
and Other Vegetarians (New York: Oxford, 2003), p. 5; G.E. Fraser, “Associations between
diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white
California Seventh-day Adventists, Am J Clin Nutr (1999) 70(suppl):532S–38S; G.E. Fraser,
P.W. Dysinger, C. Best, et al., “IHD risk factors in middle-aged Seventh-day Adventist
men and their neighbors,” Am J Epidemiol (1987) 126:638–46.
23. Fraser, Dysinger, Best, et al., “IHD risk factors.”
24. Fraser, Diet, p. 13.


25. Fraser, “Associations.”
27. G.E. Fraser, J. Sabate, W.L. Beeson, et al., “A possible protective effect of nut consumption
on risk of coronary heart disease: the Adventist Health Study,” Arch Intern Med (1992)
152:1416–24.
29. J. Berkel and F. de Waard, “Mortality pattern and life expectancy of Seventh-day Adventists
in the Netherlands,” Int J Epidemiol (1983) 12(4):455–59, cited in Fraser, Diet, p. 23.
30. M.L. Toohey, M.A. Haris, D. Williams, et al., “Cardiovascular disease risk factors are
lower in African-American vegans compared to lacto-ovo vegetarians,” J Am Coll Nutr
(1998) 17:425–34.
32. Fraser, Diet, pp. 141–42.
33. N. Brathwaite, H.S. Fraser, N. Modeste, et al., “Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and
vegetarian status among Seventh-day Adventists in Barbados: preliminary results,”
Ethn Dis (2003) 13:34–9; and Fraser, “Associations.”
36. E.H. Haddad and J.S. Tanzman, “What do vegetarians in the United States eat?,” Am J
Clin Nutr (2003) 78(suppl):626S–32S.
37. E.T. Kennedy, S.A. Bowman, I.T. Spence, et al., “Popular diets: correlation to health,
nutrition, and obesity,” J Am Diet Assoc (2001) 101:411–20.
38. G.K. Davey, E.A. Spencer, P.N. Appleby, et al., “EPIC-Oxford lifestyle characteristics and
nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33,993 meat-eaters and 31,546 non-meat-eaters in the UK,”
Public Health Nutr (2003) 6:259–69.
39. P.N. Appleby, M. Thorogood, J.I. Mann, et al., “The Oxford Vegetarian Study: an
overview,” Am J Clin Nutr (1999) 70(suppl):525S–31S.
40. Appleby et al., “Oxford Vegetarian Study.”
42. Appleby et al., “Oxford Vegetarian Study”; and Fraser, Diet, pp. 233–35.
43. P.N. Appleby, G.K. Davey, and T.J. Key, “Hypertension and blood pressure among meat
eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans in EPIC-Oxford,” Public Health Nutr (2002)
5:645–54.
44. Appleby, Davey, and Key, “Hypertension.”
45. Fraser, Diet, p. 220.
46. T. Key and G. Davey, “Prevalence of obesity is low in people who do not eat meat,” BMJ
(1996) 313:816–17.
47. P.N. Appleby, M. Thorogood, and J.I. Mann, “Low body mass index in non-meat
eaters: the possible roles of animal fat, dietary fibre and alcohol,” Int J Obesity (1998)
22(5):454–60.
48. P.K. Newby, K.L. Tucker, and A. Wolk, “Risk of overweight and obesity among
semivegetarian, lactovegetarian, and vegan women,” Am J Clin Nutr (2005) 81:1267–74.
49. T.J. Key, G.E. Fraser, M. Thorogood, et al., “Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians:
detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies,” Am J Clin Nutr
(1999) 70(suppl):516S–24S.
50. T.J. Key, G.K. Davey, and P.N. Appleby, “Health benefits of a vegetarian diet,” Proc Nutr
Soc (1999) 58(2):271–75.

Notes • 187

51. Appleby, Thorogood, and Mann, “Low body mass index”; and Key, Davey, and Appleby,
“Health benefits.”
52. Fraser, Diet, pp. 236–38.
53. T.T. Fung, W.C. Willett, M.J. Stampfer, et al., “Dietary patterns and the risk of coronary
heart disease in women,” Arch Intern Med (2001) 161:1857–62.
54. F.B. Hu, E.B. Rimm, M.J. Stampfer, et al., “Prospective study of major dietary patterns
and risk of coronary heart disease in men,” Am J Clin Nutr (2000) 72:912–21.
55. I.L. Rouse, L.J. Beilin, D.P. Mahoney, et al., “Nutrient intake, blood pressure, serum and
urinary prostaglandins and serum thromboxane B2 in a controlled trial with a lacto-
ovo-vegetarian diet,” J Hypertens (1986) 4:241–50; and S.E. Sciarrone, M.T. Strahan, L.J.
Beilin, et al., “Biochemical and neurohormonal responses to the introduction of a lacto-
ovo vegetarian diet,” J Hypertens (1993) 11:849–60.
56. Rouse et al., “Nutrient intake”; and L.J. Appel, T.J. Moore, E. Obarzanek, et al., “A
clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure,” N Engl J Med (1997)
336:1117–24.
57. A.M. Lees, A.Y. Mok, R.S. Lees, et al., “Plant sterols as cholesterol-lowering agents:
clinical trials in patients with hypercholesterolemia and studies of sterol balance,”
Atherosclerosis (1977) 28:325–38; and D.J. Jenkins, T.M. Wolever, A.V. Rao, et al., “Effect on
blood lipids of very high intakes of fiber in diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol,”
N Engl J Med (1993) 329:21–6.
58. D.J. Jenkins, C.W. Kendall, A. Marchie, et al., “Effects of a dietary portfolio of cholesterol-
lowering foods vs lovastatin on serum lipids and C-reactive protein,” JAMA (2003)
290:502–10; D.J. Jenkins, C.W. Kendall, A. Marchie, et al., “Direct comparison of a
dietary portfolio of cholesterol-lowering foods with a statin in hypercholesterolemic
participants,” Am J Clin Nutr (2005) 81(2):380–87; and D.J. Jenkins, C.W. Kendall,
A. Marchie, et al., “The effect of combining plant sterols, soy protein, viscous fibers, and
almonds in treating hypercholesterolemia,” Metabolism (2003) 52(11):1478–83.
59. S.M. Grundy, J.I. Cleeman, B.C.N. Merz, et al., “Implications of recent clinical trials for
the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines,”
Circulation (2004) 110:227–39.
60. H.A. Diehl, “Coronary risk reduction through intensive community-based lifestyle
intervention: the Coronary Health Improvement Project (CHIP) experience,” Am J
Cardiol (1998) 82(10B):83T–87T.
61. D.W. Harsha, P.-H. Lin, E. Obarzanek, et al., “Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension:
a summary of results,” J Am Diet Assoc (1999) 99(suppl):S53–59; N.M. Karanja,
E. Obarzanek, P.-H. Lin, et al., “Descriptive characteristics of the dietary patterns used
in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension trial,” J Am Diet Assoc (1999) 99(suppl):
S19–S27; F.M. Sacks, L.P. Svetkey, W.M. Vollmer, et al., “Effects on blood pressure of
reduced dietary sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)
diet,” N Engl J Med (2001) 344:3–10; Appel et al., “A clinical trial”; and E. Obarzanek,
F.M. Sacks, and W.M. Vollmer, “Effects on blood lipids of a blood pressure-lowering
diet: the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) trial,” Am J Clin Nutr (2001)
74(1):80–89.
62. M. deLorgeril, P. Salen, J.-L. Martin, et al., “Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors,
and the rate of cardiovascular complications after myocardial infarction: final report of
the Lyon Diet Heart Study,” Circulation (1999) 99:779–85.
63. A. Leaf, “Dietary prevention of coronary heart disease: the Lyon Diet Heart Study,”
Circulation (1999) 99:733–35.
64. S.G. Aldana, R.L. Greenlaw, H.A. Diehl, et al., “Effects of an intensive diet and physical
activity modification program on the health risks of adults,” J Am Diet Assoc (2005)
105(3):371–81.


65. D. Ornish, S.E. Brown, L.W. Schenwitz, et al., “Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary
heart disease?,” Lancet (1990) 336:129–33; and D. Ornish, L.W. Schenwitz, J.H. Billings,
et al., “Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease,” JAMA (1998)
280:2001–07.
66. J. Koertge, G. Weidner, M. Elliott-Eller, et al., “Improvement in medical risk factors
and quality of life in women and men with coronary artery disease in the Multicenter
Lifestyle Demonstration Project,” Am J Cardiol (2003) 91:1316–22.
67. D. Ornish, G. Weidner, W.R. Fair, et al., “Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the
progression of prostate cancer,” J Urol (2005) 174:1065–69.
68. C.B. Esselstyn Jr., “Updating a 12-year experience with arrest and reversal therapy for
coronary heart disease (an overdue requiem for palliative cardiology),” Am J Cardiol
(1999) 84(3):339–41; C.B. Esselstyn Jr., “Resolving the coronary artery disease epidemic
through plant-based nutrition,” Prev Cardiol (2001) 4:171–77; and “Becoming heart attack
proof” (VegSource Interactive, Inc., 2003), www.vegsource.com/esselstyn/index.htm.
69. Institute of Medicine (IOM), Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber,
Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, 2002), pp. 297–302, 777–87; and Ornish et al., “Intensive
lifestyle changes for reversal.”
70. R.J. Barnard, T. Jung, and S.B. Inkeles, “Diet and exercise in the treatment of NIDDM: the
need for early emphasis,” Diabetes Care (1994) 17:1469–72.
71. M.G. Crane and C. Sample, “Regression of diabetic neuropathy with total vegetarian
(vegan) diet,” J Nutr Med (1994) 4:431–39.
72. American Cancer Society (ACS), “The complete guide – nutrition and physical activity,”
www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2X_Diet_and_Activity_Factors_That_
Affect_Risks.asp?sitearea=PED; DHHS/USDA, Dietary Guidelines for Americans; and World
Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization (WHO/FAO), Diet, Nutrition
and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases, WHO Technical Report Series 916 (Geneva, 2003).
73. H.C. Hung, K.J. Joshipura, R. Jiang, et al., “Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of major
chronic disease,” J Natl Cancer Inst (2004) 96:1577–84; S. Liu, I.M. Lee, U. Ajani, et al.,
“Intake of vegetables rich in carotenoids and risk of coronary heart disease in men:
the Physicians’ Health Study,” Int J Epidemiol (2001) 30:130–35; and L.A. Bazzano, J. He,
L.G. Ogden, et al., “Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in
US adults: the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic
Follow-up Study,” Am J Clin Nutr (2002) 76:93–99.
74. K.J. Joshipura, F.B. Hu, J.E. Manson, et al., “The effect of fruit and vegetable intake on risk
for coronary heart disease,” Ann Intern Med (2001) 134:1106–14; and S. Liu, J.E. Manson,
I.M. Lee, et al., “Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: the
Women’s Health Study,” Am J Clin Nutr (2000) 72:922–28.
75. T.H. Rissanen, S. Voutilainen, J.K. Virtanen, et al., “Low intake of fruits, berries and
vegetables is associated with excess mortality in men: the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart
Disease Risk Factor (KIHD) Study,” J Nutr (2003) 133:199–204.
76. Bazzano et al., “Fruit and vegetable intake.”
77. P. Van’t Veer, M.C. Jansen, M. Klerk, et al., “Fruits and vegetables in the prevention of
cancer and cardiovascular disease,” Public Health Nutr (2000) 3:103–07.
78. L.M. Steffen, C.H. Kroenke, X. Yu, et al., “Associations of plant food dairy product, and
meat intakes with 15-y incidence of elevated blood pressure in young black and white
adults: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study,” Am J
Clin Nutr (2005) 82:1169–77; and L. Dauchet, P. Amouyel, and J. Dallongeville, “Fruit and
vegetable consumption and risk of stroke: a meta-analysis of cohort studies,” Neurology
(2005) 65:1193–97.

Notes • 189

79. E. Riboli and T. Norat, “Epidemiologic evidence of the protective effect of fruit
and vegetables on cancer risk,” Am J Clin Nutr (2003) 78(suppl):559S–69S; T.J. Key,
A. Schatzkin, W.C. Willett, et al., “Diet, nutrition, and the prevention of cancer,” Public
Health Nutr (2004) 7:187–200; and WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition.
80. Key et al., “Diet, nutrition”; WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition; C.H. van Gils, P.H. Peeters,
H.B. Bueno-de-Mesquita, et al., “Consumption of vegetables and fruits and risk of
breast cancer,” JAMA (2005) 293:183–93; D. Feskanich, R.G. Ziegler, D.S. Michaud, et al.,
“Prospective study of fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of lung cancer among
men and women,” J Natl Cancer Inst (2000) 92:1812–23; L.E. Voorrips, R.A. Goldbohm,
D.T. Verhoeven, et al., “Vegetable and fruit consumption and lung cancer risk in the
Netherlands Cohort Study on diet and cancer,” Cancer Causes Control (2001) 11:101–15;
S.A. Smith-Warner, D. Spiegelman, S.S. Yaun, et al., “Intake of fruits and vegetables
and risk of breast cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort studies,” JAMA (2001) 285:769–76;
M.P. Zeegers, R.A. Goldbohm, and P.A. van den Brandt, “Consumption of vegetables
and fruits and urothelial cancer incidence: a prospective study,” Cancer Epid Biomarkers
Prev (2001) 10:1121–28; and D.S. Michaud, D. Spiegelman, S.K. Clinton, et al., “Fruit and
vegetable intake and incidence of bladder cancer in a male prospective cohort,” J Natl
Cancer Inst (1999) 91:605–13.
81. Key et al., “Diet, nutrition”; and WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition.
82. ACS, “Complete Guide”; DHHS/USDA, Dietary Guidelines for Americans; and WHO/FAO,
Diet, Nutrition.
83. W.C. Willett, “Harvesting the fruits of research: new guidelines on nutrition and physical
activity,” CA Cancer J Clin (2002) 52:66–67.
84. B.J. Rolls, J.A. Ello-Martin, and B.C. Tohill, “What can intervention studies tell us about
the relationship between fruits and vegetable consumption and weight management?,”
Nutr Rev (2004) 62:1–17.
85. B.C. Tohill, “Fruit and vegetables and weight management,” www.hkresources.org/
articles/fruit_vegetable.ppt.
86. B.C. Tohill, J. Seymour, M. Serdula, et al., “What epidemiologic studies tell us about
the relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption and body weight,” Nutr Rev
(2004) 62:365–74.
87. M.K. Serdula, C. Gillespie, L. Kettel-Khan, et al., “Trends in fruit and vegetable
consumption among adults in the United States: behavioral risk factor surveillance
system, 1994–2000,” Am J Pub Health (2004) 94:1014–18.
88. Rolls, Ello-Martin, and Tohill, “What can intervention studies tell.”
89. E.S. Ford and A.H. Mokdad, “Fruit and vegetable consumption and diabetes mellitus
incidence among U.S. adults,” Prev Med (2001) 32:33–9; K.L. Tucker, H. Chen, M.T.
Hannan, et al., “Bone mineral density and dietary patterns in older adults: the
Framingham Osteoporosis Study,” Am J Clin Nutr (2002) 76:245–52; S.A. New, “Intake
of fruits and vegetables: implications for bone health,” Proc Nutr Soc (2003) 62:889–99;
S.A. New, S.P. Robins, M.K. Campbell, et al., “Dietary influences on bone mass and
bone metabolism: further evidence of a positive link between fruit and vegetable
consumption and bone health?,” Am J Clin Nutr (2000) 71:142–51; and K.L. Tucker, M.T.
Hannan, H. Chen, et al., “Potassium and fruit and vegetables are associated with greater
bone mineral density in elderly men and women,” Am J Clin Nutr (1999) 69:727–36.
90. J.K. Campbell, K. Canene-Adams, B.L. Lindshield, et al., “Tomato phytochemicals and
prostate cancer risk,” J Nutr (2004) 134(12 suppl):3486S–92S.
91. S. Mannisto, S.A. Smith-Warner, D. Spiegelman, et al., “Dietary carotenoids and risk of
lung cancer in a pooled analysis of seven cohort studies,” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev (2004) 13:40–48.


92. Michaud et al., “Fruit and vegetable intake.”
93. C.S. Johnston, C.A. Taylor, and J.S. Hampl, “More Americans are eating “5 A Day” but
intakes of dark green and cruciferous vegetables remain low,” J Nutr (2000) 130:3063–67;
and DHHS/USDA, Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
94. WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition.
95. 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Report, www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/, part D, sec. 6.
96. DHHS/USDA, Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
97. USDA OC, Agriculture Fact Book.
98. Fraser et al., “A possible protective effect”; D.R. Jacobs Jr., K.A. Meyer, L.H. Kushi,
et al., “Whole-grain intake may reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease death in post-
menopausal women: the Iowa Women’s Health Study,” Am J Clin Nutr (1998) 68:248–57;
S. Liu, M.J. Stampfer, F.B. Hu, et al., “Whole-grain consumption and risk of coronary
heart disease: results from the Nurses’ Health Study,” Am J Clin Nutr (1999) 70:412–19;
S. Liu, J.E. Manson, M.J. Stampfer, et al., “Whole grain consumption and risk of ischemic
stroke in women: a prospective study,” JAMA (2000) 284:1534–40; and J.W. Anderson,
“Whole grains protect against atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Proc Nutr Soc
(2003) 62:135–42.
99. M.A. Murtaugh, D.R. Jacobs Jr., B. Jacob, et al., “Epidemiological support for the
protection of whole grains against diabetes,” Proc Nutr Soc (2003) 62:143–49.
100. M.A. Pereira, D.R. Jacobs Jr., J.J. Pins, et al., “Effect of whole grains on insulin sensitivity
in overweight hyperinsulinemic adults,” Am J Clin Nutr (2002) 75:848–55.
101. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), p. 370.
102. W.H. Aldoori, E.L. Giovannucci, H.R. Rockett, et al., “A prospective study of dietary
fiber types and symptomatic diverticular disease in men,” J Nutr (1998) 128(4):714–19;
and IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), p. 372.
103. Fraser et al., “A possible protective effect”; J. Sabate, G.E. Fraser, K. Burke, et al., “Effects
of walnuts on serum lipid levels and blood pressure in normal men,” N Engl J Med (1993)
328: 603–07; L.H. Kushi, A.R. Folsom, R.J. Prineas, et al., “Dietary antioxidant vitamins
and death from coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women,” N Engl J Med (1996)
334:1156–62; F.B. Hu, M.J. Stampfer, J.E. Manson, et al., “Frequent nut consumption
and risk of coronary heart disease in women: prospective cohort study,” BMJ (1998)
317:1341–45; J. Sabate, “Nut consumption, vegetarian diets, ischemic heart disease risk,
and all-cause mortality: evidence from epidemiologic studies,” Am J Clin Nutr (1993)
70(suppl):500S–03S; G.A. Spiller, D.A. Jenkins, O. Bosello, et al., “Nuts and plasma lipids:
an almond-based diet lowers LDL-C while preserving HDL-C,” J Am Coll Nutr (1998)
17(3):285–90; and Jenkins et al., “Effects of a dietary portfolio.”
104. J. Mukuddem-Petersen, W. Oosthuizen, and J.C. Jerling, “A systematic review of the
effects of nuts on blood lipid profiles in humans,” J Nutr (2005) 135:2082–89; P.M. Kris-
Etherton, S. Yu-Poth, J. Sabate, et al., “Nuts and their bioactive constituents: effects
on serum lipids and other factors that affect disease risk,” Am J Clin Nutr (1999)
70(suppl):504S–11S; Fraser, Diet, p. 257; and FDA, “Qualified health claims: letter of
enforcement discretion—nuts and coronary heart disease,” Docket No. 02P-0505 (2003),
www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qhcnuts2.html.
105. USDA ERS, Food Availability.
106. L.A. Bazzano, J. He, L.G. Ogden, et al., “Legume consumption and risk of coronary heart
disease in US men and women,” Arch Intern Med (2001) 161:2573–78.
107. J.W. Anderson and A.W. Major, “Pulses and lipaemia, short- and long-term effect potential
in the prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Br J Nutr (2002) 88(suppl):S263–71.

Notes • 191

108. F.M. Sacks, A. Lichtenstein, L. Van Horn, et al., “Soy protein, isoflavones, and
cardiovascular health: an American Heart Association science advisory for professionals
from the Nutrition Committee,” Circulation (2006) 113:1034–44.
109. P.H. Peeters, L. Boker Keinan, Y.T. van der Schouw, et al., “Phytoestrogens and breast
cancer risk: review of the epidemiological evidence,” Breast Cancer Res Trea (2003) 77:171–
83; M.J. Messina, “Emerging evidence on the role of soy in reducing prostate cancer
risk,” Nutr Rev (2003) 61:117–31; and Key et al., “Diet, nutrition.”
110. S. Kreijkamp-Kaspers, L. Kok, D.E. Grobbee, et al., “Effect of soy protein containing
isoflavones on cognitive function, bone mineral density, and plasma lipids in
postmenopausal women,” JAMA (2004) 292:65–74.
111. Bazzano et al., “Legume consumption.”
112. I. Darmadi-Blackberry, M.L. Wahlqvist, A. Kouris-Blazos, et al., “Legumes: the most
important dietary predictor of survival in older people of different ethnicities,” Asia Pac
J Clin Nutr (2004) 6:217–20.
113. Cotton et al., “Dietary sources of nutrients.” Note that “ice cream” also includes sherbet
and frozen yogurt, and “cakes, cookies” also includes quick breads and donuts.
115. These studies link saturated fat to diabetes: F.B. Hu, R.M. van Dam, and S. Liu, “Diet
and risk of type II diabetes: the role of types of fat and carbohydrate,” Diabetologia (2001)
44:805–17; E.J.M. Feskens, S.M. Virtanen, L. Rasanen, et al., “Dietary factors determining
diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance: a 20-year follow-up of the Finnish and Dutch
cohorts of the Seven Countries Study,” Diabetes Care (1995) 18:1104–12; and D.R. Parker,
S.T. Weiss, R. Troisi, et al., “Relationship of dietary saturated fatty acids and body habitus
to serum insulin concentrations: the Normative Aging Study,” Am J Clin Nutr (1993)
58:129–36.
Other studies find no such links: M.B. Costa, S.R.G. Ferreira, L.J. Franco, et al., “Dietary
patterns in a high-risk population for glucose intolerance,” J Epidemiol (2000) 10:111–17;
and J. Salmeron, F.B. Hu, E. Manson, et al., “Dietary fat intake and risk of type 2 diabetes
in women,” Am J Clin Nutr (2001) 73:1019–26.
116. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), pp. 422–23.
118. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), p. 542; M. Tanasescu, E. Cho, J.E. Manson,
and F.B. Hu, “Dietary fat and cholesterol and the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Am
J Clin Nutr (2004) 79:999–1005; and A. Ascherio, E.B. Rimm, E.L. Giovannucci, et al.,
“Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the
United States,” BMJ (1996) 313:84–90.
121. F.M. Sacks, A. Donner, W.P. Castelli, et al., “Effect of ingestion of meat on plasma
cholesterol of vegetarians,” JAMA (1981) 246:640–44.
123. Sacks et al., “Effect of ingestion”; A. Ascherio, C. Hennekens, W.C. Willett, et al.,
“Prospective study of nutritional factors, blood pressure, and hypertension among US
women,” Hypertension (1996) 27:1065–72; and Steffen et al., “Associations of plant food.”
124. ACS, “Complete guide”; and WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition.
125. A. Chao, M.J. Thun, C.J. Connell, et al., “Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer,”
JAMA (2005) 293:172–82.


127. T. Norat, S. Bingham, P. Ferrari, et al., “Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition,” J Natl Cancer Inst (2005)
97:906–16.
128. T. Norat, A. Lukanova, P. Ferrari, et al., “Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk:
dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies,” Int J Cancer (2002) 98:241–56.
129. M.S. Sandhu, I.R. White, and K. McPherson, “Systematic review of the prospective cohort
studies on meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analytical approach,”
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2001) 10:439–46.
130. U. Nöthlings, L.R. Wilkens, S.P. Murphy, et al., “Meat and fat intake as risk factors for
pancreatic cancer: the multiethnic cohort study,” J Natl Cancer Inst (2005) 97(19):1458–65.
131. R.M. van Dam, W.C. Willett, E.B. Rimm, et al., “Dietary fat and meat intake in relation
to risk of type 2 diabetes in men,” Diabetes Care (2002) 25:417–24; T.T. Fung, M. Schulze,
J.E. Manson, et al., “Dietary patterns, meat intake, and the risk of type 2 diabetes in
women,” Arch Intern Med (2004) 164:2235–40.
132. DHHS/USDA, Dietary Guidelines for Americans; R.P. Heaney, “Calcium, dairy products and
osteoporosis,” J Am Coll Nutr (2000) 19:835S–9S; and R.L. Weinsier and C.L. Krumdieck, “Dairy
foods and bone health: examination of the evidence,” Am J Clin Nutr (2000) 72:681–89.
133. S. Mizuno, K. Matsuura, T. Gotou, et al., “Antihypertensive effect of casein hydrolysate
in a placebo-controlled study in subjects with high-normal blood pressure and mild
hypertension,” Br J Nutr (2005) 94:84–91.
134. Weinsier and Krumdieck, “Dairy foods.”
135. 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Report, part D, sec. 6; Appel et al.,
“A clinical trial”; and L.J. Massey, “Dairy food consumption, blood pressure and stroke,”
J Nutr (2001) 131:1875–78.
136. Cotton et al., “Dietary sources of nutrients.”
137. F.B. Hu, M.J. Stampfer, J.E. Manson, et al., “Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in
relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women,” Am J Clin Nutr (1999) 70:1001–08.
138. X. Gao, M.P. LaValley, and K.L. Tucker, “Prospective studies of dairy product and calcium
intakes and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis,” J Natl Cancer Inst (2005) 97:1768–77;
J.M. Chan and E.L. Giovannucci, “Dairy products, calcium, and vitamin D and risk of
prostate cancer,” Epidemiol Rev (2001) 23:87–92; and G. Severi, D.R. English, J.L. Hopper,
et al., Letter to the editor re. “Prospective studies of dairy product and calcium intakes
and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis,” J Nat Cancer Inst (2006) 98:794–95.
139. Gao, LaValley, and Tucker, “Dairy product.”
140. USDA ARS, Pyramid Servings Intakes in the United States 1999–2002, 1 Day (2005),
http://usna.usda.gov/cnrg/services/ts_3-0.pdf.
141. M. Tseng, R.A. Breslow, B.I. Graubard, et al., “Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes and
prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic
Follow-up Study cohort,” Am J Clin Nutr (2005) 81:1147–54; and J.M. Chan, M.J. Stampfer,
J. Ma, et al., “Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians’ Health
Study,” Am J Clin Nutr (2001) 74:549–54.
142. These studies link calcium to prostate cancer: C. Rodriguez, M.L. McCullough,
A.M. Mondul, et al., “Calcium, dairy products, and risk of prostate cancer in a prospective
cohort of United States men,” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2003) 12:597–603; and
Chan et al., “Dairy products.” These studies dispute that claim: A.G. Schuurman,
P.A. van den Brandt, E. Dorant, et al., “Animal products, calcium and protein and
prostate cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort study,” Br J Cancer (1999) 80:1107–13; and
J.M. Chan, P. Pietinen, M. Virtanen, et al., “Diet and prostate cancer risk in a cohort
of smokers, with a specific focus on calcium and phosphorous,” Cancer Causes Control
(2000) 11:859–67.

Notes • 193

143. T. Norat and E. Riboli, “Dairy products and colorectal cancer: a review of possible
mechanisms and epidemiological evidence,” Eur J Clin Nutr (2003) 57:1–17; and E. Cho,
S.A. Smith-Warner, D. Spiegelman, et al., “Dairy foods, calcium, and colorectal cancer: a
pooled analysis of 10 cohort studies,” J Natl Cancer Inst (2004) 96:1015–22.
144. M.-H. Shin, M.D. Holmes, S.E. Hankinson, et al., “Intake of dairy products, calcium,
and vitamin D and risk of breast cancer,” J Natl Cancer Inst (2002) 94:1301–11;
M.L. McCullough, C. Rodriguez, W.R. Diver, et al., “Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D
intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the Cancer Prevention Study II nutrition
cohort,” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2005) 14(12):2898–904; and P.G. Moorman and
P.D. Terry, “Consumption of dairy products and the risk of breast cancer: a review of the
literature,” Am J Clin Nutr (2004) 80:5–14.
146. 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Report, part D, sec. 4.
149. R.M. Weggemans, P.L. Zock, and M.B. Katan, “Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases
the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-
analysis,” Am J Clin Nutr (2001) 73:885–91.
150. F.B. Hu, M.J. Stampfer, E.B. Rimm, et al., “A prospective study of egg consumption and
risk of cardiovascular disease in men and women,” JAMA (1999) 281:1387–94.
151. K. He, Y. Song, M.L. Daviglus, et al., “Accumulated evidence on fish consumption and
coronary heart disease mortality: a meta-analysis of cohort studies,” Circulation (2004)
109:2705–11.
152. P.M. Kris-Etherton, W.S. Harris, and L.J. Appel, “Omega-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular
disease: new recommendations from the American Heart Association,” Arterioscl Thromb
Vasc Biol (2003) 23:151–52; and IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), pp. 828–29.
153. WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition; P.M. Kris-Etherton, W.S. Harris, and L.J. Appel, “American
Heart Association Scientific Statement: fish consumption, fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids,
and cardiovascular disease,” Circulation (2002) 106:2747–57; DHHS/USDA, Dietary
Guidelines for Americans; and 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Report.
154. Norat et al., “Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk.”
155. M.F. Leitzmann, M.J. Stampfer, D.C. Michaud, et al., “Dietary intake of n-3 and n-6 fatty
acids and the risk of prostate cancer,” Am J Clin Nutr (2004) 80:204–16; K. Augustsson,
D.S. Michaud, E.B. Rimm, et al., “A prospective study of intake of fish and marine fatty
acids and prostate cancer,” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2003) 12:64–7; P. Terry,
P. Lichtenstein, M. Feychting, et al., “Fatty fish consumption and risk of prostate cancer,”
Lancet (2001) 357:1764–6; and A.E. Norrish, C.M. Skeaff, G.L. Arribas, et al., “Prostate
cancer risk and consumption of fish oils: a dietary biomarker-based case-control study,”
Br J Cancer (1999) 81:1238–42.
157. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), pp. 351–61; and American Dietetic
Association, “Health implications of dietary fiber,” J Am Diet Assoc (2002) 102:993–1000.
158. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), pp. 370–72; and Aldoori et al., “Dietary
fiber types.”
159. B. Trock, E. Lanza, and P. Greenwald, “Dietary fiber, vegetables, and colon cancer:
critical review and meta-analyses of the epidemiologic evidence,” J Natl Cancer Inst
(1990) 82:650–61.
160. Epidemiology study: Y. Park, D.J. Hunter, D. Spiegelman, et al., “Dietary fiber intake
and risk of colon cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies,” JAMA (2005)


294:2849–57. Intervention studies: D.S. Alberts, M.E. Martinez, D.J. Roe, et al.,”Lack
of effect of a high-fiber cereal supplement on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas,”
N Engl J Med (2000) 342:1156–62; C. Bonithon-Kopp, O. Kronborg, A. Giacosa, et al.,
“Calcium and fibre supplementation in prevention of colorectal adenoma recurrence: a
randomized intervention trial,” Lancet (2000) 356:1300–06; and A. Schatzkin, E. Lanza,
D. Corle, et al., “Lack of effect of a low-fat, high-fiber diet on the recurrence of colorectal
adenomas,” N Engl J Med (2000) 342:1149–55.
161. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), pp. 377–80; and M.D. Holmes, S. Liu,
S.E. Hankinson, et al., “Dietary carbohydrates, fiber, and breast cancer risk,” Am J
Epidemiol (2004) 159:732–39.
162. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), pp. 362–69.
163. E.B. Rimm, A. Ascherio, E. Giovannucci, et al., “Vegetable, fruit, and cereal fiber intake
and risk of coronary heart disease among men,” JAMA (1996) 275:447–51.
164. L.A. Bazzano, J. He, L.G. Ogden, et al., “Dietary fiber intake and reduced risk of coronary
heart disease in US men and women,” Arch Intern Med (2003) 163:1897–904.
165. A. Wolk, J.E. Manson, M.J. Stampfer, et al., “Long-term intake of dietary fiber and
decreased risk of coronary heart disease among women,” JAMA (1999) 281:1998–2004.
166. M.A. Pereira, E. O’Reily, K. Augustsson, et al., “Dietary fiber and risk of coronary heart
disease: a pooled analysis of cohort studies,” Arch Intern Med (2004) 164:370–76.
167. D.S. Ludwig, M.A. Pereira, C.H. Kroenke, et al., “Dietary fiber, weight gain, and
cardiovascular disease risk factors in young adults,” JAMA (1999) 282:1539–46.
168. P. Insel, R.E. Turner, and D. Ross, Nutrition, 2nd ed. (Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett,
2004).
170. WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition; M.A. Pereira and D.S. Ludwig, “Dietary fiber and body-weight
regulation: observations and mechanisms,” Pediatr Clin North Am (2001) 48:969–80; and
N.C. Howarth, E. Saltzman, and S.B. Roberts, “Dietary fiber and weight regulation,”
Nutr Rev (2001) 59:129–39.
171. J.H. Cummings, “The effect of dietary fiber on fecal weight and composition,” in
G.A. Spiller, ed., CRC Handbook of Dietary Fiber in Human Nutrition (Boca Raton: CRC
Press, 1993), pp. 263–349; cited in IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), p. 371.
172. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), pp. 389, 1036.
173. E.H. Haddad, L.S. Berk, J.D. Kettering, et al., “Dietary intake and biochemical,
hematologic, and immune status of vegans compared with non-vegetarians,” Am
J Clin Nutr (1999) 70(suppl):586S–93S; M.S. Donaldson, “Food and nutrient intakes
of Hallelujah vegetarians,” Nutr Food Sci (2001) 31:293–303; N.E. Allen, P.N. Appleby,
G.K. Davey, et al., “The associations of diet with serum insulin-like growth factor I and
its main binding proteins in 292 women meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans,” Cancer
Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2002) 11:1441–48; Appleby, Davey, and Key, “Hypertension”;
Davey et al., “EPIC-Oxford”; and E.A. Spencer, P.N. Appleby, G.K. Davey, et al., “Diet
and body mass index in 38,000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and
vegans,” Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord (2003) 27:728–34.
174. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin
B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline (Washington, DC: National Academies Press,
1998), pp. 260–66.
175. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, pp. 265, 269; and Cotton et al., “Dietary sources
of nutrients.”
176. E.P. Quinlivan and J.F. Gregory III, “Effect of food fortification on folic acid intake in the
United States,” Am J Clin Nutr (2003) 77:221–25.

Notes • 195

177. N.S. Green, “Folic acid supplementation and prevention of birth defects,” J Nutr (2002)
132(suppl):2356S–60S.
178. Haddad et al., “Dietary intake.”
180. Davey et al., “EPIC-Oxford”; and Toohey et al., “Cardiovascular disease risk factors.”
181. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate
(Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004), p. 244.
183. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, pp. 200–19; and P.K. Whelton, J. He, J.A. Cutler,
et al., “Effects of oral potassium on blood pressure,” JAMA (1997) 277:1624–32.
184. K.L. Tucker, M.T. Hannan, H. Chen, et al., “Potassium and fruit and vegetables are
associated with greater bone mineral density in elderly men and women,” Am J Clin
Nutr (1999) 69:727–36; H.M. MacDonald, S.A. New, M.H. Golden, et al., “Nutritional
associations with bone loss during the menopausal transition: evidence of a beneficial
effect of calcium, alcohol, and fruit and vegetable nutrients and of a detrimental effect of
fatty acids,” Am J Clin Nutr (2004) 79:155–65; S.A. New, H.M. MacDonald, M.K. Campbell,
et al., “Lower estimates of net endogenous non-carbonic acid production are positively
associated with indexes of bone health in premenopausal and perimenopausal women,”
Am J Clin Nutr (2004) 79:131–38; and IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, pp. 219–22.
185. G.C. Curhan, W.C. Willett, E.R. Rimm, et al., “A prospective study of dietary calcium and
other nutrients and the risk of symptomatic kidney stones,” N Engl J Med (1993) 328:833–
38; G.C. Curhan, W.C. Willett, F.E. Speizer, et al., “Comparison of dietary calcium with
supplemental calcium and other nutrients as factors affecting the risk of kidney stones
in women,” Ann Intern Med (1997) 126:497–504; T. Hirvonen, P. Pietinen, M. Virtanen,
et al., “Nutrient intake and use of beverages and risk of kidney stones among male
smokers,” Am J Epidemiol (1999) 150:187–94; and P. Barcelo, O. Wuhl, E. Servitge, et al.,
“Randomized double-blind study of potassium citrate in idiopathic hypocitraturic
calcium nephrolithiasis,” J Urol (1993) 150:1761–64.
186. P.M. Kris-Etherton, “AHA Scientific Advisory: monounsaturated fatty acids and risk
of cardiovascular disease,” Circulation (1990) 100:1253–58; and F.B. Hu, M.J. Stampfer,
J.E. Manson, et al., “Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in women,”
N Engl J Med (1997) 337:1491–99.
187. Hu et al., “Dietary fat intake.”
188. USDA ERS, Food availability database.
189. B.C. Davis and P.M. Kris-Etherton, “Achieving optimal essential fatty acid status in
vegetarians: current knowledge and practice implications,” Am J Clin Nutr (2003)
78(suppl):640S–46S; and WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition.
190. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes (Macronutrients), p. 1324; and American Dietetic Association
and Dietitians of Canada. Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians
of Canada: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc (2003) 103:748–65.
191. IOM, Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids
192. Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group, “The effect of vitamin
E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers,”
N Engl J Med (1994) 330:1029–35.
193. A.J. Duffield-Lillico, B.L. Dalkin, M.E. Reid, et al., “Selenium supplementation, baseline
plasma selenium status and incidence of prostate cancer: an analysis of the complete
treatment period of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial,” BJU Int (2003) 91:608–12;
L.C. Clark, B. Dalkin, A. Krongrad, et al., “Decreased incidence of prostate cancer with


selenium supplementation: results of a double-blind cancer prevention trial,” Br J Urol
(1998) 81:730–34; and G.F. Combs Jr., “Status of selenium in prostate cancer prevention,”
Br J Cancer (2004) 91:195–99.
194. R.H. Liu, “Health benefits of fruit and vegetables are from additive and synergistic
combinations of phytochemicals,” Am J Clin Nutr (2003) 78(suppl):517S–20S.
195. W.J. Craig, “Health-promoting phytochemicals: beyond the traditional nutrients,” in
J. Sabate, ed., Vegetarian Nutrition (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2001).
196. K. Wakabayashi, M. Nagao, H. Esumi, et al., “Food-derived mutagens and carcinogens,”
Cancer Res (1992) 52:2092S–98S; and E.G. Snyderwine, “Some perspective on the
nutritional aspects of breast cancer research: food derived heterocyclic amines as
etiologic agents in human mammary cancer,” Cancer (1994) 74:1070–77.
197. N. Kazerouni, R. Sinha, C.-H. Hsu, et al., “Analysis of 200 food items for benzo[a]pyrene
and estimation of its intake in an epidemiologic study,” Food Chem Toxicol (2001)
39:423–36.
198. World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research, Food, Nutrition,
and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective (Washington, DC: American Institute for
Cancer Research, 1997).
199. Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Report on Carcinogens, 11th ed.
(Washington, DC: DHHS, 2004).
200. USDA NASS, Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2001 Field Crops Summary (2002), http://usda.
mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0502.pdf, pp. 6, 68; and USDA
NASS, Agricultural Statistics 2003 (2003), www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr03/03_ch1.pdf,
pp. 1–47.
201. For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer publishes monographs
that include reviews of several pesticides that have been linked to carcinogenicity; see
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/allmonos90.php.
202. Extension Toxicology Network, “Pesticide information profiles,” http://extoxnet.orst.
edu/pips/ghindex.html, accessed Mar. 26, 2004; and A. Blair, “An overview of potential
health hazards among farmers from use of pesticides,” paper presented at Surgeon
General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health, Des Moines, Apr. 30–May 3,
1991 (Cincinnati: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1992), p. 237.
203. Extension Toxicology Network, “Pesticide information profiles.”
204. Blair, “Overview.”
205. A. Blair, “Clues to cancer etiology from studies of farmers,” Scand J Environ Health (1992)
18:209–15.
206. P.K. Mills and R. Yang, “Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers,” J Occup Environ
Med (2003) 45:249–58.
207. M.C. Alavanja, C. Samanic, M. Dosemeci, et al., “Use of agricultural pesticides and
prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort,” Am J Epidemiol (2003)
157:800–14.
208. S.H. Zahm, D.D. Weisenburger, R.C. Saal, et al., “A case-control study of non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma and the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in eastern
Nebraska,” Epidemiol (1990) 1:349–56.
209. From USDA NASS, Agricultural chemical use database (Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation Center for Integrated Pest Management, 2004), www.pestmanagement.info/
nass/app_usageExcel.cfm.
210. J.A. Rusiecki, A. De Roos, W.J. Lee, et al., “Cancer incidence among pesticide applicators
exposed to atrazine in the Agricultural Health Study,” J Natl Cancer Inst (2004) 96:1375–
82; and A.J. De Roos, A. Blair, J.A. Rusiecki, et al., “Cancer incidence among glyphosate-

Notes • 197

exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study,” Environ Health Perspect
(2005) 113:49–54.
211. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals (Atlanta, 2001), p. 35; and EPA, “Organophosphate pesticides in
food—a primer on reassessment of residue limits” (1999), www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/
primer.htm.
212. USDA NASS, 2001 Field Crops Summary; USDA NASS, Agricultural Statistics 2003; and
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, National pesticide use database,
www.ncfap.org/database/download/database.xls, accessed Jan. 30, 2006.
213. J.E. Davies, “Neurotoxic concerns of human pesticide exposures,” Am J Ind Med (1990)
18:327–31; and L. Rosenstock, W. Daniell, S. Barnhart, et al., “Chronic neuropsychological
sequelae of occupational exposure to organophosphate insecticides,” Am J Ind Med (1990)
18:321–25.
214. J.A. Thomas, “Toxic responses of the reproductive system,” in C.D. Klassen, ed., Casarett
Doull’s Toxicology, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996), pp. 547–82.
215. National Research Council, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children (Washington,
DC: National Academies Press, 1993); and D. Pimentel and A. Greiner, “Environmental
and socioeconomic costs of pesticide use,” in D. Pimentel, ed., Techniques for Reducing
Pesticide Use (New York: John Wiley Sons, 1997), p. 54.
216. R. Repetto and S.S. Baliga, Pesticides and the Immune System: The Public Health Risks
(Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1996).
217. Public Health Service, Carcinogens.
218. Environmental Working Group, PCBs in Farmed Salmon: Factory Methods, Unusual Results
(2003), www.ewg.org/reports/farmedPCBs/es.php.
219. D. Schardt, “Farmed salmon under fire,” Nutrition Action Healthletter (2004) 31(5):9–11.
220. A. Schecter, O. Papke, K. Tung, et al., “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers contamination of
United States food,” Environ Sci Technol (2005) 38:5306–11.
221. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, “Polybrominated diphenylethers
(PBDEs) significant new use rule (SNUR) questions and answers,” www.epa.gov/oppt/
pbde/pubs/qanda.htm, accessed Aug. 15, 2005.
222. EPA, “What you need to know about mercury in fish and shellfish,” www.epa.gov/
waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html, accessed Mar. 30, 2005; and “Mercury in tuna: new
safety concerns,” Consumer Reports July 2006.
223. R.J. Deckelbaum, E.A. Fisher, M. Winston, et al., “Summary of a scientific conference
on preventive nutrition: pediatrics to geriatrics,” Circulation (1999) 100:450–56; and ACS,
“Unified dietary guidelines” (1999), www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_
1x_Unified_Dietary_Guidelines.asp.

Argument #2. Less Foodborne Illness (pp. 59–72)
1. P.S. Mead, L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, et al., “Food-related illness and death in the United
States,” Emerging Infectious Diseases (1999) 5:607–25; and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), Economics of Food-borne Disease (Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office, 2003).
2. Mead et al., “Food-related illness.”
3. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Outbreak Alert! (2005), www.cspinet.org/
foodsafety/outbreak_report.html.


4. C. Sugarman, “Rising fears over food safety: battling the hidden hazard of bacterial
contamination,” Washington Post July 23, 1986:E1; and J. Ackerman, “Food: how safe?
How altered?,” Nat Geog May 2002:2–50.
5. CSPI, Outbreak Alert!
6. “How safe is that burger?,” Consumer Reports Nov. 2002:29.
7. “Of birds and bacteria,” Consumer Reports Jan. 2003, www.consumerreports.org/cro/
food/chicken-safety-103/overview.htm.
8. A. Hingley, Campylobacter: Low Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader (U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, 1999), www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/599_bug.html.
9. M.F. Jacobson and C. Smith Dewaal, “Egg safety: are there cracks in the federal food
safety system?,” testimony before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, July 1,
1999, www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/egg_safety.html.
10. M. Helms, P. Vastrup, P. Gerner-Smidt, et al., “Short and long term mortality associated
with foodborne bacterial gastrointestinal infections: registry-based study,” BMJ (2003)
326:357.
11. CSPI, “Kevin’s law,” brochure (2001), www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/kevinslawbrochure.pdf.
12. G. Manning, “Going whole hog for farm security,” USA Today Apr. 3, 2003:9D.
13. R. Tauxe, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases
Branch, appearing on “Modern Meat,” Frontline, Apr. 18, 2002.
15. Ackerman, “Food.”
16. E.B. Solomon, S. Yaron, K.R. Matthews, et al., “Transmission of Escherichia coli O157:
H7 from contaminated manure and irrigation water to lettuce plant tissue and its
subsequent internalization,” Appl Environ Microbiol (2002) 68:397–400; and P. Belluck and
C. Drew, “Tracing bout of illness to small lettuce farm,” New York Times Jan. 5, 1998:A1.
17. P. Brasher, “Record recalls hit meat industry,” Des Moines Register Dec. 8, 2002:1A;
T. Breuer, D.H. Benkel, R.L. Shapiro, et al., “A multistate outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:
H7 infections linked to alfalfa sprouts grown from contaminated seeds,” Emerg Infect
Dis (2001) 7:977–82; and B. Allen, “From the editor,” Nat Geog May 2002:1.
18. “Epidemiologic notes and reports multistate outbreak of Salmonella poona infections:
United States and Canada, 1991,” MMWR (1991) 40(32):549–52; and Associated Press,
“Kale, turnip greens recalled,” Dec. 26, 2002.
19. A. Nunez-Delgado, E. Lopez-Periago, F. Diaz-Fierros Vigueira, et al., “Chloride, sodium,
potassium and faecal bacteria levels in surface runoff and subsurface percolates from
grassland plots amended with cattle slurry,” Bioresour Technol (2002) 82:261–71; U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS), Cryptosporidium
and Giardia in Beef Calves (Fort Collins, CO, 2001), http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/
beefcowcalf/chapa/ChapaCrypto.pdf; and I.V. Wesley, S.J. Wells, K.M. Harmon, et al.,
“Fecal shedding of Campylobacter and Arcobacter spp. in dairy cattle,” Appl Environ
Microbiol (2000) 66:1994–2000.
20. USDA APHIS, Info Sheet: Salmonella in United States Feedlots (2001), www.aphis.usda.gov/
vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/feedlot/feedlot99/FD99salmonella.pdf; and USDA APHIS, Info
Sheet: Escherichia coli O157 in United States Feedlots (2001), www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/
ncahs/nahms/feedlot/feedlot99/FD99ecoli.pdf.
21. S.H. Lee, D.A. Levy, G.F. Craun, et al., “Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks:
United States, 1999–2000,” MMWR (2002) 51:1–47.
22. I.D. Ogden, D.R. Fenlon, A.J. Vinten, et al., “The fate of Escherichia coli O157 in soil and
its potential to contaminate drinking water,” Int J Food Microbiol (2001) 66:111–7; and

Notes • 199

S.G. Jackson, R.B. Goodbrand, R.P. Johnson, et al., “Escherichia coli O157:H7 diarrhoea
associated with well water and infected cattle on an Ontario farm,” Epidemiol Infect
(1998) 120:17–20.
23. Lee et al., “Surveillance.”
24. A.J. Lung, C.M. Lin, J.M. Kim, et al., “Destruction of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and
Salmonella enteritidis in cow manure composting,” J Food Prot (2001) 64:1309–14.
25. I.T. Kudva, K. Blanch, and C.J. Hovde, “Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival in
ovine or bovine manure and manure slurry,” Appl Environ Microbiol (1998) 64:3166–74.
26. E.E. Natvig, S.C. Ingham, B.H. Ingham, et al., “Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium
and Escherichia coli contamination of root and leaf vegetables grown in soils with
incorporated bovine manure,” Appl Environ Microbiol (2002) 68:2737–44.
27. Kudva, Blanch, and Hovde, “Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival.”
28. M.E. Ensminger, Animal Science, 9th ed. (Danville, IL: Interstate Publishing, 1991),
pp. 31–32.
29. L. Saif, “Panel dialogue: challenges faced and met in research on food health,” National
Academies Workshop, Exploring a Vision: Integrating Knowledge for Food and Health,
June 9, 2003, Washington, DC.
30. J.A. Zahn, “Evidence for transfer of tylosin and tylosin-resistant bacteria in air from
swine production facilities using sub-therapeutic concentrations of tylan in feed,”
presentation at International Animal Agriculture and Food Science Conference, July
24–28, 2001, Indianapolis.
31. B.Z. Predicala, J.E. Urban, R.G. Maghirang, et al., “Assessment of bioaerosols in swine
barns by filtration and impaction,” Curr Microbiol (2002) 44:136–40.
32. Appearing on Morning Edition, Oct. 10, 2005, National Public Radio, www.npr.org.
33. D.J. Alexander and I.H. Brown, “Recent zoonoses caused by influenza A viruses,”
Rev Sci Tech (2000) 19:197–225; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Infectious Diseases (CDC NCID), The Influenza (Flu) Viruses (2003),
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/viruses.htm; and World Health Organization (WHO),
Avian Influenza: Assessing the Pandemic Threat (2005), www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/
H5N1-9reduit.pdf.
34. CDC NCID, Influenza (Flu) Viruses.
35. G. Kolata, Flu: The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic (Darby, PA: Diane Publishing Co,
2001).
36. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), “What is an influenza
pandemic?,” www.pandemicflu.gov/general/whatis.html, accessed June 4, 2006;
Alexander and Brown, “Recent zoonoses”; CDC, “Information about influenza
epidemics,” www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/pandemics.htm, accessed Nov. 22, 2005;
and R. Stein, “Infections now more widespread,” Washington Post June 15, 2003:A1.
37. T.K. Taubenberger, A.H. Reid, R.M. Lourens, et al., “Characterization of the 1918
influenza virus polymerase genes,” Nature (2005) 437:889–93; and L.K. Altman, “New
microbes could become new norm,” New York Times Mar. 9, 2004:D6.
38. B.W.J. Mahy and C.C. Brown, “Emerging zoonoses: crossing the species barrier,” Rev Sci
Tech (2000) 19:33–40; J. Taylor, “Hong Kong watching for bird flu,” Australian Broadcasting
News Feb. 2, 2004, www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1036587.htm; B. Wuethrich,
“Chasing the fickle swine flu,” Science (2003) 299:1502–05; Health, Welfare, and Food
Bureau of Hong Kong, “Preventive and contingency measures to combat avian influenza
in Hong Kong” (2004), www.info.gov.hk/info/flu/eng/files/legco-e.pdf.
39. M. Mellon, C. Benbrook, and K. Benbrook, Hogging It (Cambridge, MA: UCS Publications,
2001).


40. M. Swartz, “Human diseases caused by foodborne pathogens of animal origin,” Clin
Infect Dis (2002) 34(3):S111–22; and S.B. Levy, G.B. FitzGerald, and A.B. Macone, “Changes
in intestinal flora of farm personnel after introduction of a tetracycline-supplemented
feed on a farm,” New Engl J Med (1976) 295:583–88.
41. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need to
Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from Antibiotic Use in Animals, Report No.
GAO-04-490 (2004), www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf, appendix VII: Comments
from the Department of Health and Human Services.
42. M. Barza and K. Travers, “Excess infections due to antimicrobial resistance: the
attributable fraction,” Clin Infect Dis (2002) 34(3):S126–30.
43. D.G. White, S. Zhao, R. Sudler, et al., “The isolation of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella from
retail ground meats,” New Engl J Med (2001) 345:1147–53.
44. S.D. Holmberg, M.T. Osterholm, K.A. Senger, et al., “Drug-resistant Salmonella from
animals fed antimicrobials,” New Engl J Med (1984) 311(10):617–22; also see T.F. O’Brien,
J.D. Hopkins, E.S. Gilleece, et al., “Molecular epidemiology of antibiotic resistance in
Salmonella from animals and human beings in the United States,” New Engl J Med (1982)
307(1):1–6.
45. CDC, Human Isolates Final Report, 2002: National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System for Enteric Bacteria (NARMS) (2004), www.cdc.gov/narms/annual/2002/
2002ANNUALREPORTFINAL.pdf.
46. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Enroflaxin for poultry; opportunity for hearing,”
Docket No. 00N-1571, Fed Reg (2000) 65(211):64954–65, www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/
98fr/103100a.htm.
47. FAAIR Scientific Advisory Panel, “Select findings and conclusions,” Clin Infect Dis (2002)
34(Suppl 3):S73–75.
48. A.W. Mathews and Z. Goldfarb, “FDA bans use of antibiotic in poultry,” Wall Street
Journal July 29, 2005:B1.
49. Animal Health Institute, “The antibiotics debate” (2004), www.ahi.org/antibioticsDebate/
index.asp, accessed May 2, 2005.
50. WHO, Global Principles for the Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance in Animals
Intended for Food (Geneva, 2001), http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_CDS_
CSR_APH_2000.4.pdf; K.M. Shea and the Committee on Environmental Health
and the Committee on Infectious Diseases, “Nontherapeutic uses of antimicrobial
agents in animal agriculture: implications for pediatrics,” Pediatrics (2004) 114(3):862–
68; Institute of Medicine, Microbial Threats to Human Health: Emergence, Detection,
and Response (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003), p. 208; see www.
keepantibioticsworking.org for in-depth information about antibiotic resistance. The
Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2005 is S.742 and H.R. 2562.
51. National Research Council, The Use of Drugs in Food Animals, Benefits and Risks
52. European Union, “Ban on antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed enters into
effect,” press release, Dec. 22, 2005.
53. J. Callesen, “Effects of termination of AGP use on pig welfare and productivity,” in
WHO, Working Papers from the International Invitational Symposium: Beyond Antimicrobial
Growth Promoters in Food Animal Production (Nov. 6–9, 2002, Foulum, Denmark), www.
agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/djfhu57.pdf.
54. WHO, Working Papers, www.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/djfhu57.pdf, p. 18; F.M.
Aarestrup, “Effect of abolishment of the use of antimicrobial agents for growth
promotion on occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci from food
animals in Denmark,” Antimicrob Agents Chemother (2001) 45:2056–59; and M.C. Evans

Notes • 201

and H.C. Wegener, “Antimicrobial growth promoters and Salmonella spp., Campylobacter
spp. in poultry and swine, Denmark,” Emerg Infect Dis (2003) 9(4):489–92.
55. Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research, DANMAP 2004: Use of Antimicrobial
Agents and Occurrence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria from Food Animals, Foods and
Humans in Denmark (2005), www.dfvf.dk/Files/Filer/Zoonosecentret/Publikationer/
Danmap/Danmap_2004.pdf, figure 2; and WHO, Impacts of Antimicrobial Growth Promoter
Termination in Denmark: The WHO International Review Panel’s Evaluation of the Termination
of the Use of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters in Denmark (2003), www.who.int/salmsurv/
en/Expertsreportgrowthpromoterdenmark.pdf, pp. 41–44.
56. M. Burros, “Poultry industry quietly cuts back on antibiotic use,” New York Times
Feb. 10, 2002:A1; E. Weise, “‘Natural’ chickens take flight: four top producers end use
of antibiotics,” USA Today Jan. 24, 2006:5D; and Iowa Pork Producers Association,
“Proposed resolution number 2004–5: feeding of growth promotant antibiotics” (2004),
www.iowapork.org/download/2004_resolutions.pdf.
57. Animal Health Institute, “Antibiotic use in animals rises in 2004,” news release, June 27,
2005, www.ahi.org/mediaCenter/documents/Antibioticuse2004.pdf.
58. D. Schuettler, “Scientists fear bird flu could trigger pandemic: global action must be
taken immediately, conference told,” National Post (Reuters) Feb 24, 2005:A16.
59. CDC, “Recent avian influenza outbreaks in Asia,” www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/outbreaks/
asia.htm, accessed Mar. 3, 2005.
60. S. Leahy, “Bird flu defeated—at high cost,” Inter Press News Service Agency, Aug. 27,
2004, www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25254.
61. D. Milbank, “Capitol Hill flu briefing was no trick, and no treat,” Washington Post Oct. 13,
2005:A2.

Argument #3. Better Soil (pp. 73–85)
1. C. Niskanen, “Trout in troubled waters: shifts in land use in southeast Minnesota are
causing sediment damage to streams,” St. Paul Pioneer Press Apr. 17, 2005:7G.
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), “Briefing
room: land use, value, and management: major uses of land” (2002), www.ers.usda.gov/
Briefing/LandUse/majorlandusechapter.htm, accessed May 2, 2003.
3. G. Wuerthner, freelance biologist and former employee of U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, email to Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Sept. 16, 2004.
4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS),
National Resources Inventory 2001 NRI: Soil Erosion (2003), www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/
land/nri01/erosion.pdf.
5. USDA ERS, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (Washington, DC, 2003),
p. 4.2-15.
6. M. Al-Kaisi, “Soil erosion and crop productivity: topsoil thickness” (Ames, IA: Iowa
State University, 2001), www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2001/1-29-2001/topsoilerosion.
html.
7. The 37 percent figure is from United Nations Development Programme, United Nations
Environment Programme, World Bank, and World Resources Institute, World Resources
2000–2001: People and Ecosystems—The Fraying Web of Life (Washington, DC, 2001),
pp. 258–59.
8. USDA ERS, Agricultural Resources, pp. 4.2-14, 15.


10. USDA ERS, Soil, Nutrient and Water Management Systems Used in U.S. Corn Production
(Washington, DC, 2002), p. 9.
12. USDA ERS, Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory (Washington, DC, 2000),
pp. 51, 57. Much of the data on soil erosion in this chapter are adapted from that report.
Although the 2002 Inventory has been published, it is not as exhaustive as the 1997 report,
and USDA maintains that data from the 1997 report are more reliable and consistent. For
further explanation, see www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/.
13. USDA ERS, Summary Report, pp. 58–95. USDA NRCS estimates that water erosion impairs
crop productivity on about 65 million acres, and wind erosion impairs productivity on
48 million acres. Some of that land experiences both types of erosion. Current national
data do not allow distinguishing the extent of erosion related to different crops. If those
data were available, one could estimate the erosion resulting from animal agriculture.
14. USDA NRCS, Managing Soil Organic Matter: The Key to Air and Water Quality (2003),
www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/tech-notes/soils/soil2.pdf.
15. P. Sullivan, Overview of Cover Crops and Green Manures: Fundamentals of Sustainable
Agriculture (National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, 2003), http://attra.
ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/covercrop.pdf.
16. USDA ERS, Summary Report, pp. 58–59.
17. USDA NRCS, “What is topsoil worth?,” http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_organic_
matter/som_d.html, accessed Dec. 26, 2005.
18. W.R. Osterkamp, hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, email to CSPI, Apr. 25, 2003.
19. USDA NRCS, Managing Soil Organic Matter.
20. A. Fletcher, “Soil erosion could devastate food sector” (2006), www.foodnavigator.
com/news/ng.asp?n=66605-soil-nutrients-crops.
21. USDA Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS), “Technologies for management
of arid rangelands,” research project description (2001), www.ars.usda.gov/research/
publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=142788; J. Daniel, Grazinglands Research
Laboratory, USDA ARS, email to CSPI, Apr. 28, 2003; and J.A. Daniel and W.A. Phillips,
“Impacts of grazing strategies on soil compaction,” paper presented at American Society
of Agricultural Engineers 2000 Summer Meeting, Milwaukee, July 9–12, 2000.
22. A.J. Jones, R.D. Grisso, and C.A. Shapiro, “Soil compaction … fact and fiction: common
questions and their answers” (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension
Service, 1988), http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/soil/cc342.htm.
23. J.A. Daniel, P. Kenneth, W. Altom, et al., “Long-term grazing density impacts on soil
compaction,” Trans ASAE (2002) 45:1911–15.
24. U.S. Geological Survey, “An introduction to biological soil crusts,” www.soilcrust.org/
crust101.htm, accessed June 17, 2004.
25. J. Belsky and J.L. Gelbard, “Comrades in harm: livestock and weeds in the intermountain
west,” in G. Wuerthner and M Matteson, eds., Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction
of the American West (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002), pp. 203–06.
26. USDA NRCS, Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory (Washington, DC, 2000),
p. 9. For similar 2003 data, see USDA, “Johanns announces 43 percent decline in total
cropland erosion,” press release, May 22, 2006, www.usda.gov/2006/05/0170.xml.
27. USDA Farm Service Agency, Conservation Reserve Program monthly contract report,
www.fsa.usda.gov/crpstorpt/06Approved/r1sumyr/us.htm, accessed Aug. 3, 2005.
28. USDA NRCS, National Resources Inventory: 2002 (Washington, DC, 2004), p. 1.
29. USDA, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (Washington, DC, 2003), ch. 4.2,
pp. 22, 41.

Notes • 203

30. Purdue University, “Tillage type definitions” (2002), www.ctic.purdue.edu/Core4/CT/
Definitions.html.
31. Calculations based on acreages in USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA
NASS), Agricultural Chemical Usage: Field Crops Summary for 1998, 2000, 2001; and grain
used for feed from Agricultural Outlook Sept. 2002, www.ers.usda.gov/publications/
agoutlook/sep2002/ao294.pdf, p. 44, table 17.
32. Calculations based on acreages in USDA NASS, Field Crops Summary for 1998, 2000,
2001. Total U.S. fertilizer use in 2001 was 20.6 million tons according to USDA ERS,
“Agricultural chemicals and production technology: questions and answers, 2002,” ERS
Online Briefing Room, www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AgChemicals/Questions/nmqa2.
htm, accessed Mar. 23, 2004.
33. C.E. Pitcairn, U.M. Skiba, M.A. Sutton, et al., “Defining the spatial impacts of poultry
farm ammonia emissions on species composition of adjacent woodland groundflora
using Ellenberg Nitrogen Index, nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emissions and foliar
nitrogen as marker variables,” Environ Pollut (2002) 119:9–21.
34. Adapted from USDA NASS, Milk Production, Disposition, and Income 2002 Summary
(Washington, DC, 2003), p. 2; USDA NASS, Poultry Slaughter 2002 Summary (Washington,
DC, 2003), p. 2; USDA NASS, Livestock Slaughter 2002 Summary (Washington, DC, 2003),
pp. 35, 41, 49; and USDA NASS, Chickens and Eggs 2003 Summary (Washington, DC, 2004),
p. 2.
35. National Research Council (NRC), Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current
Knowledge, Future Needs (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003), ch. 3.
36. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Technical Report No. 26 Part 1: Mineral
Fertilizer Production and the Environment (Geneva, 1998), p. 49; and NRC, Air Emissions, p. 75.
37. Potash and Phosphate Institute and Potash and Phosphate Institute of Canada (PPI-
PPIC), Technical Bulletin 2002–1: Plant Nutrient Use in North American Agriculture—
Producing Food and Fiber, Preserving the Environment, Integrating Organic and Inorganic
Sources (Norcross, GA, 2002), p. 60.
38. D. Eckert, “Efficient fertilizer use: fertilizer management practices” (Bannockburn, IL:
IMC-Agrico), www.agcentral.com/imcdemo/05Nitrogen/05-0.htm; and A. Napgezek,
“Aging soils?,” University of Wisconsin Extension NPM Field Notes Feb./Mar. 1999.
39. H. de Zeeuw and K. Lock, “Urban and periurban agriculture, health and environment,”
discussion paper for Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-Resource
Centre for Urban Agriculture and Forestry electronic conference, Urban and Periurban
Agriculture on the Policy Agenda (2000), www.fao.org/urbanag/Paper2-e.htm.
40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (EPA
OPPT), Background Report on Fertilizer Use, Contaminants, and Regulations (1999), www.epa.
gov/opptintr/fertilizer.pdf, pp. ii, iv; and U. Krogmann and L.S. Boyles, Land Application
of Sewage Sludge (Biosolids), No. 5: Heavy Metals (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1999).
41. EPA OPPT, Background Report, p. 112.
42. EPA OPPT, Background Report, p. 110.
43. J. Kaplan, Z. Ross, and B. Walker, As You Sow: Toxic Waste in California Home and Farm
Fertilizers (San Francisco: California Public Interest Research Group, 1999), p. 1.
44. PPI-PPIC, Technical Bulletin, p. 48.
45. R.L. Wershaw, J.R. Garbarino, and M.R. Burkhardt, “Roxarsone in natural water systems,”
in U.S. Geological Survey, Proceedings: Effects of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) on
Hydrologic Resources and the Environment, meeting held in Fort Collins, CO, Aug. 30–
Sept. 1, 1999, http://water.usgs.gov/owq/AFO/proceedings/afo/html/wershaw.html.


46. Based on manure data in R.L. Kellogg, C.H. Lander, D.H. Moffitt, et al., Manure Nutrients
Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and
Temporal Trends for the United States (Washington, DC: USDA, 2000), p. 49; and USDA NASS
data on numbers of livestock, www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/indexbysubject.
jsp?Pass_group=Livestock+%26+Animals.
47. Based on a midyear population of 285,317,559 from the U.S. Census Bureau, “State
population estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002,” www.census.gov/popest/archives/
2000s/vintage_2002/ST-EST2002-01.html, accessed Jan. 13, 2003; and an average waste
generation of about 0.518 tons per person per year from EPA, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), as cited in Fed Reg (2003) 68(29):7175–274
(complete document is at www.epa.gov/EPA-WATER/2003/February/Day-12/w3074.htm).
48. Adapted from American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Manure Production and
Characteristics (St. Josephs, MI, 2002), pp. 687–89; and Kellogg et al., Manure Nutrients,
p. 49.
49. Kellogg et al., Manure Nutrients, p. 74.
50. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils to
Help Mitigate Global Warming, CAST Issue Paper 14 (Washington, DC, 2000), p. 2; and
Kellogg et al., Manure Nutrients, pp. 53, 56.
51. PPI-PPIC, Organic or Inorganic, Which Nutrient Source Is Better for Plants?, Enviro-briefs
No. 2 (Norcross, GA, 2002).
52. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, Nutrient Manager: Making the
Most of Manure (College Park, MD, 1994).
53. K.E. Nachman, J.P. Graham, L.B. Price, and E.K. Silbergeld, “Arsenic: a roadblock to potential
animal waste management solutions,” Environ Health Perspect (2005) 113(9):1123–24.
54. J.E. Lee, “Sludge spread on fields is fodder for lawsuits,” New York Times June 26, 2003:20.
55. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Land Application of Sewage Sludge:
A Guide for Land Appliers on the Requirements of the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal
of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 503 (1994), www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/sludge.pdf.
56. Lee, “Sludge.”
57. EPA OPPT, Background Report, p. iii.
58. R. Kellogg, R. Nehring, A. Grube, et al., “Trends in the potential for environmental risk
from pesticide loss from farm fields” (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,
1999), www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/pesttrend.html.
59. Extension Toxicology Network, Movement of Pesticides in the Environment, Toxicology
Information Brief (1993), http://extoxnet.orst.edu/tibs/movement.htm.
60. “Roundup kills frogs as well as tadpoles, Pitt biologist finds,” University of Pittsburgh
news release, Aug. 3, 2005, www.umc.pitt.edu:591/m/FMPro?-db=ma-lay=a-format=d.
htmlid=2115-Find; and “Roundup highly lethal to amphibians, finds University of
Pittsburgh researcher,” Medical News Today Apr. 3, 2005, www.medicalnewstoday.com/
medicalnews.php?newsid=22159.
61. T. Hayes, K. Haston, M. Tsui, et al., “Atrazine-induced hermaphroditism at 0.1ppb
in American leopard frogs (Rana pipiens): laboratory and field evidence,” Environ
Health Perspect (2003) 111(4):568–75; and L. Tavera-Mendoza, S. Ruby, P. Brousseau,
et al., “Response of the amphibian tadpole Xenopus laevis to atrazine during sexual
differentiation of the ovary,” Environ Toxicol Chem (2002) 21:1264–67.
62. M. Losure, “Frog researcher invited to tell his story,” Minnesota Public Radio, Oct. 26, 2004,
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/10/25_losurem_frogresearch/.

Notes • 205

Argument #4. More and Cleaner Water (pp. 87–101)
1. A.J. Laukaitis, “Drought shrinking McConaughy,” Lincoln Journal Star May 22, 2005:D1.
2. Water Education Foundation, “Colorado river project,” www.water-ed.org/coloradoriver.
asp.
3. Calculations based on D. Pimentel, J. Houser, E. Preiss, et al., “Water resources:
agriculture, the environment, and society,” Bioscience (1997) 47(2):97–106.
4. Calculations based on D. Pimentel, B. Berger, D. Filiberto, et al., “Water resources:
agricultural and environmental issues,” Bioscience (2004) 54:909–18.
5. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995
(Washington, DC, 1998), pp. 18–19.
6. USGS, Estimated Use of Water, pp. 18–19; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). 2003 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey
(Washington, DC, 2004), pp. 69–89. Other irrigation includes vegetables and fruit
orchards, irrigation of feed grains for export, other crops (e.g., rice), fish farms, parks,
and public and private golf courses.
7. USDA, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), Agricultural Resources and Environmental
Indicators (Washington, DC, 2003) p. 2.1-1.
8. USGS, Estimated Use of Water, p. 19.
9. S. Postel, Pillar of Sand (New York: WorldWatch Institute, 1999), p. 80. The figure of
21 billion gallons per day originally was recorded by the former U.S. Water Resources
Council and reported in J. Adler, “The browning of America,” Newsweek Feb. 23, 1981:26.
10. D. Jehl, “Saving water, U.S. farmers are worried they’ll parch,” New York Times Aug. 28,
2002:A1.
11. High Plains Water Conservation District Number 1, “The Ogallala Aquifer” (Lubbock,
TX), www.hpwd.com/the_ogallala.asp, accessed Mar. 29, 2004; and D. McConnell,
“Groundwater: on-line resource” (University of Akron, 1998), http://lists.uakron.edu/
geology/natscigeo/Lectures/gwater/gwater.htm#ogallala, accessed Aug. 8, 2005.
12. Panhandler Plains Historical Museum, “Ogallala Aquifer” (Canyon, TX), www.
panhandleplains.org/education/pop_geo_ogallala.php, accessed Mar. 11, 2005.
13. L.E. Jones, “Saltwater contamination in the Upper Floridan Aquifer at Brunswick,
Georgia,” in K.J. Hatcher, ed., Proceedings of 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference
(Athens, GA: Institute of Ecology), http://ga.water.usgs.gov/publications/gwrc2001jones.
html, pp. 644–47.
14. USDA ERS, Agricultural Resources, p. 2.1-6.
15. National Research Council, Mitigating Losses from Land Subsidence in the United States
(Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1991), p. 1. The $125 million is equivalent
to $180 million in 2005 dollars.
17. Authors’ calculations based on USDA data on irrigated acreages and fractions used to
feed U.S. livestock.
18. USDA NASS, Irrigation Survey, table 27.
20. USDA NASS, Irrigation Survey, tables 27, 28.
21. USDA NASS, Irrigation Survey, tables 12, 27, adjusted for fractions of irrigated crops used
to feed domestic livestock.


22. USDA ERS, Agricultural Resources, pp. 2.2-2, 3; USDA ERS, “Briefing room: irrigation and
water use” (2004), www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WaterUse/Questions/qa10.htm, accessed
Aug. 8, 2005.
23. USDA ERS, Agricultural Resources, pp. 2.2-3, 7, 11.
24. S. Postel, “Growing more food with less water,” Scientific American Feb. 2001:50.
25. USDA ERS, Agricultural Resources, pp. 2.2-11.
26. USDA NASS, Irrigation Survey, p. 2-2.11.
27. Postel, “Growing more food.”
28. T.L. Anderson and P.S. Snyder, Priming the Invisible Pump (Bozeman, MT: Property and
Environment Research Center, 1997).
29. U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Insular and Interior Affairs, Committee Print, Dec. 1988; referenced in
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Taking from the Taxpayer: Public Subsidies for Natural Resource Development: An Investigative
Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994), pp. 41–69 (expressed
in 1988 dollars).
30. U.S. House of Representatives, Taking from the Taxpayer, pp. 41–69; referenced in Postel,
Pillar of Sand, p. 231.
31. U.S. House of Representatives, Taking from the Taxpayer, pp. 41–69; referenced in Postel,
Pillar of Sand, p. 231.
32. Environmental Working Group, “Executive summary,” in California Water Subsidies
(2004), pp. 1–2, www.ewg.org/reports/watersubsidies/execsumm.php.
34. For example, 100 gallons of irrigation water increases farm income by 3.4 cents for corn
and 1.6 cents for sorghum. Calculated from USDA NASS, Irrigation Survey, tables 27, 28;
and USDA ERS, table 17, supply and utilization, Agricultural Outlook Jan.–Feb. 2001:37–
38, www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AgOutlook/Jan2001/ao278.pdf.
35. USDA NASS, “Quick stats,” www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.
asp, accessed Jan. 11, 2006; and USDA NASS, Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2004 Summary
(2005), http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/ncit0705.pdf.
36. Natural Resources Defense Council, “Alfalfa: the thirstiest crop,” fact sheet (2001), www.
nrdc.org/water/conservation/fcawater.asp.
37. Congressional Budget Office, Water Use Conflicts in the West: Implications for Reforming the
Bureau of Reclamation’s Water Supply Policies (Washington, DC, 1997).
39. New York City Department of Environmental Protection, New York City 2004 Drinking
Water Supply and Quality Report, www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/wsstat04.pdf.
40. S.A. Ewing, D.C. Lay, and E. von Berell, Farm Animal Well-Being: Stress Physiology, Animal
Behavior, and Environmental Design (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999), p. 235.
42. USDA ERS, Confined Animal Production and Manure Nutrients (Washington, DC, 2001),
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib771, p. iii.
43. Yunker Plastics, Inc., “Manure lagoons,” www.yunkerplastics.com/manure.htm.
44. North Carolina State University, “Frequently asked questions about livestock production,”
www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/manure/awm/program/barker/questions/q_doc.
html, accessed Oct. 9, 2005; and P. Cantrell, “State opens gate, waterways to livestock
factories,” Great Lakes Bulletin Winter 1999:19 (Michigan Land Use Institute).

Notes • 207

45. Associated Press, “11 million litres of liquid manure spill into upstate New York river,”
Aug. 13, 2005.
46. M. Cook and E. Stanley, “Reducing water pollution from animal feeding operations,”
testimony before the House Subcommittees on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry and
Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, May
13, 1998, www.epa.gov/ocirpage/hearings/testimony/105_1997_1998/051398.htm.
47. D. Pimentel, C. Harvey, P. Resosudarmo, et al., “Environmental and economic costs of
soil erosion and conservation benefits,” Science (1995) 267:1117–23.
48. P.K. Koluvek, K. Tanji, and T. Trout, “Overview of soil erosion from irrigation,” J Irrig
Drainage Engin (1993) 119:929–46.
50. United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme,
World Bank, and World Resources Institute, World Resources 2000–2001: People and
Ecosystems—The Fraying Web of Life (Washington, DC, 2001), p. 50.
51. Postel, Pillar of Sand, p. 101.
53. D. Neffendorf, chairman and coordinator, USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (USDA NRCS) Grazing Land Conservation Initiative, email to Center for Science
in the Public Interest (CSPI), Jan. 15, 2004; and Postel, Pillar of Sand, p. 93.
Sources (Norcross, GA, 2002), p. iii.
55. Calculations based on USDA ERS, “U.S. fertilizer use and price” (1964–2003), tables
1 and 2, www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/; fertilizer usage data from states. The
analysis included barley, corn, oats, wheat, sorghum, soy, alfalfa, hay, and pasture, but
that is not an exhaustive list, so the figure given may be an underestimate.
56. USDA ERS, “Briefing room: agricultural chemicals and production technology: nutrient
management” (2005), www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AgChemicals/nutrientmangement.
htm, accessed June 4, 2006; and USDA NASS, Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Field Crops
Summary (2004), http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.
pdf, p. 22.
58. N.N. Rabalais, R.E. Turner, and D. Scavia, “Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexico
hypoxia and the Mississippi River,” BioScience (2002) 52:129–42.
60. Rabalais, Turner, and Scavia, “Beyond science”; and National Science and Technology
Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (NSTC), Integrated
Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Washington, DC, 2000), p. 3.
61. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Rivers and streams,” National Water
Quality Inventory 2000 Report (2002), ch. 2, www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp2.pdf.
62. See, for example, G. Martin, “Phosphate risks abound,” Charlotte City, FL, Sun-Herald,
www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part4.htm.
63. In Idaho, the sites are Eastern Michaud Flats (EPA ID IDD984666610), which was a
primary processor of phosphate rock, and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (EPA ID
IDD041310707), which was a secondary processor of wastes from phosphate rock mining.
In Florida, the site is Stauffer Chemical Co. in Tarpon Springs (EPA ID FLD010596013).
For more information on any of those sites, see EPA, Superfund information systems,
CERCLIS Database, www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm.


64. B.F. McPherson and R. Halley, “The South Florida environment: a region under stress,”
USGS Circular 1134, sofia.usgs.gov/publications/circular/1134/wes/chw.html; and
“Groups threaten selenium lawsuit,” Idaho Falls Post Register Sept. 11, 2003:B1.
65. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Background Report AP-42 Section 6.10 Phosphate
Fertilizers, report prepared for EPA (Research Triangle Park, NC, 1996), pp. 2–3; and World
Bank, Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (Washington, DC, 1998), p. 387.
66. Kongshaug, Energy Consumption.
67. Pacific Environmental Services, Phosphate Fertilizers, pp. 10–12.
68. World Bank, Pollution Prevention, p. 387.
69. K. Kurt and M. Nelson, “Oklahoma accuses Arkansas poultry companies of polluting
its water,” Associated Press, July 21, 2005.
70. NSTC, Hypoxia, p. 9; Rabalais, Turner, and Scavia, “Beyond science”; and N.N. Rabalais,
executive director, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, email to Center for
Science in the Public Interest, June 14, 2002.
71. NSTC, Hypoxia, p. 3; and Rabalais, email.
72. “Hypoxia, the Gulf of Mexico’s summertime foe,” Watermarks Sept. 2004(26):3–5; www.
lacoast.gov/watermarks/2004-09/watermarks-2004-10.pdf.
73. J.R. Dandelski, Marine Dead Zones: Understanding the Problem, Congressional Research Service
Report for Congress (1998), www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/marine/mar-30.cfm.
74. NSTC, Hypoxia, pp. 4–5.
75. “Link between agricultural runoff and massive algal blooms in the sea,” Medical News
Today Dec. 8, 2004, www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17524; and
J.M. Beman, K.R. Arrigo, and P.A. Matson, “Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton
blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean,” Nature (2005) 434:211–14.
76. EPA, “Pretreatment program,” http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=3,
accessed Dec. 28, 2005.
77. “U.S. sets new farm-animal pollution curbs,” New York Times Dec. 17, 2002:D28.
78. EPA, Draft Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (1999), www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/dman_afo.pdf, p. 8.
79. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Understanding the Pollution Potential of Livestock
Waste (Springfield, 1991).
80. Pew Oceans Commission, Marine Pollution in the United States (Arlington, VA: Pew
Charitable Trusts, 2001), p. 29.
81. National Research Council, Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current
Knowledge, Future Needs (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003), p. 52.
82. M.A. Mallin, J.M. Burkholder, and L.B. Cahoon, “The North and South Carolina coasts,”
Marine Poll Bull (2000) 41:56–75.
83. R. Kellogg, R. Nehring, A. Grube, et al., “Trends in the potential for environmental risk
from pesticide loss from farm fields” (USDA NRCS, 1999), www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/
land/pubs/pesttrend.html.
84. EPA, Pesticides in Drinking-Water Wells, Pub. 20T-1004 (1990), www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_
text/housing/water-well/waterwel.txt.
85. G. Wolff, Investing in Clean Agriculture: How California Can Strengthen Agriculture, Reduce
Pollution and Save Money (Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security, 2005), p. 12.
86. D.W. Kolpin, J.E. Barbash, and R.J. Gilliom, “Occurrence of pesticides in shallow
groundwater of the United States: initial results from the National Water-Quality

Notes • 209

Assessment Program,” Environ Sci Technol (1998) 32:558–66. Similar results were found
in a newer USGS study, Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001—A
Summary, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3028/pdf/fs2006-3028.pdf.
87. USGS, Herbicides in Rainfall across the Midwestern and Northeastern United States, 1990–91
(1998), http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/fact-sheets/fs.181-97.html.
88. USGS, “Glyphosate herbicide found in many Midwestern streams, antibiotics not
common,” http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html, accessed Mar. 19, 2004.
89. D.W. Kolpin, E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, et al., “Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other
organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999–2000: a national reconnaissance,”
Environ Sci Technol (2002) 36:1202–11.

Argument #5. Cleaner Air (pp. 103–112)
1. Associated Press, “Jury selection begins in case against dairy farmer for 2 deaths,”
Sept. 10, 2004, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/10/state1644
EDT0112.DTL.
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS),
Quick Stats: Agricultural Statistics Data Base, www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/,
accessed June 4, 2006.
3. Meat production: USDA NASS, Farm Numbers; chicken production: USDA, Economic
Research Service, Data Product: Poultry Yearbook (2004), www.ers.usda.gov/data/sdp/
view.asp?f=livestock/89007/.
Sources (Norcross, GA, 2002), p. 58.
5. R. Koelsch, Environmental Considerations for Manure Application System Selection,
G95‑1266‑A (University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Publications, 1996), http://
ianrpubs.unl.edu/wastemgt/g1266.htm.
7. J. Barker, Safety in Swine Production Systems (Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Agency, 1996), www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/pih104.html.
8. P. Viney, V.P. Aneja, J.P. Chauhan, and J.T. Walker, “Characterization of atmospheric
ammonia emissions from swine waste storage and manure lagoons,” J Geophys Res-
Atmos (2000) 105:11,535–45.
9. J.A. Zahn, A. Tung, B. Roberts, et al., “Abatement of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
emissions from a swine lagoon using a polymer biocover,” J Air Waste Manag Asso (2001)
51:562–73.
10. C.E. Pitcairn, U.M. Skiba, M.A. Sutton, et al., “Defining the spatial impacts of poultry
farm ammonia emissions on species composition of adjacent woodland groundflora
using Ellenberg Nitrogen Index, nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emissions and foliar
nitrogen as marker variables,” Environ Pollut (2002) 119:9–21.
11. National Research Council (NRC), Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current
Knowledge, Future Needs (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003), p. 52.
12. NRC, Air Emissions, p. 72.
13. Ontario Medical Association, Ground Level Ozone Position Paper, www.oma.org/health/
smog/ground.asp.
14. T. Pelton, “Critics charge animal farms are feeding pollution into air,” Baltimore Sun
Feb. 2, 2005:1A.


15. Environmental Law Policy Center, “Illinois rivers protection initiative,” www.elpc.
org/forest/water/ammonia.htm.
16. Pelton, “Animal farms.”
17. A. Martin, “Livestock industry finds friends in EPA: document details lobbyists’ impact
on air-quality plan,” Chicago Tribune May 16, 2004:C9.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990–1998, EPA 236–R-00–001 (2000), http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/
globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BMQ76/$File/2000-inventory.pdf.
19. B. Field, Beware On-Farm Manure Storage Hazards (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University
Cooperative Extension Service, 1980), www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/S/S-82.html;
and Preventing Deaths of Farm Workers in Manure Pits, NIOSH Publication 90-103, (National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1990), www.cdc.gov/niosh/90-103.html.
21. EPA, Inventory. Methane emissions from livestock and manure total 54.8 million
metric tons of carbon equivalent (multiply by 3.67 to convert to carbon dioxide). The
EPA estimates that the average automobile emits 6.14 metric tons of carbon dioxide
per year. EPA, “Personal greenhouse gas calculator,” http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/
globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterToolsGHGCalculator.html.
22. PPI-PPIC, Technical Bulletin, pp. 60–61; and NRC, Air Emissions, p. 52.
24. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Nitrous oxide emissions” (2001), www.eia.doe.gov/
oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/nitrous.html#nap, accessed Aug. 5, 2004.
25. V. Smil, Cycles of Life (New York: Scientific American, 1997), p. 136.
27. NRC, Air Emissions, pp. 51, 53.
29. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Background Report AP-42 Section 6.8 Ammonium
Nitrate Fertilizer, report prepared for EPA (Research Triangle Park, NC, 1996), p. 5; and
EPA. AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Vol. 1., 5th ed. (Washington DC,
1995), p. 8.3–3.
30. EPA, AP-42, pp. 8.1-4, 8.8-4, 8.3-7; and EPA, “Effects of acid rain: human health” (2003),
www.epa.gov/airmarkt/acidrain/effects/health.html, accessed Apr. 3, 2005.
31. G. Kongshaug, Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fertilizer
Production (International Fertilizer Industry Association, 1998), www.fertilizer.
org/ifa/publicat/PDF/1998_biblio_65.pdf.
32. Adapted from Kongshaug, Energy Consumption; K.J. Hulsbergen and W.D. Kalk,
“Energy balances in different agricultural systems: can they be improved?,”
paper presented at International Fertiliser Society Symposium, Lisbon, Mar. 5,
2001 (York, UK: International Fertiliser Society, 2001), p. 8; and DOE, “Energy
consumption estimates by source, 1960–2000, United States” (2003), www.eia.doe.
gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/use_tot_us.html.
33. B.J. Nebel, Environmental Science: The Way the World Works, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1990), pp. 300–09.
34. NRC, Air Emissions, pp. 69–71.
35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Agricultural Safety
Database: Manure Gas, Hydrogen Sulfide (2002), www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001501–
d001600/d001535/d001535.html, accessed Mar. 12, 2003.
36. Barker, Safety.

Notes • 211

37. Barker, Safety.
38. J. Lee, “Neighbors of vast hog farms say foul air endangers their health,” New York Times
May 11, 2003:1.
39. Barker, Safety.
40. CDC, database.
42. NRC, Air Emissions, pp. 68–69; and S.S. Schiffman, “Livestock odors: implications for
human well-being,” J Anim Sci (1998) 76:1343–55.
43. Schiffman, “Livestock odors”; and NRC, Air Emissions, p. 68.
44. C.M. Williams, Benefits of Adopting Environmentally Superior Swine Waste Management
Technologies in North Carolina: An Environmental and Economic Assessment (Research
Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2003), pp. 6.1–6.3.
46. Schiffman, “Livestock odors”; NRC, Air Emissions, pp. 68–69; and R.C. Avery, S. Wing,
S.W. Marshall, et al., “Odor from industrial hog farming operations and mucosal
immune function in neighbors,” Arch Environ Health (2004) 59(2):101–08.
47. Schiffman, “Livestock odors”; and NRC, Air Emissions, p. 68.
49. A.R. Chapin, A. Rule, K. Gibson, et al., “Airborne multi-drug resistant bacteria isolated
from a concentrated swine feeding operation,” Environ Health Perspect (2005) 113(2),
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/7473/7473.pdf.
50. G. Hamscher, H.T. Pawelzick, S. Sczesny, et al., “Antibiotics in dust originating from a
pig-fattening farm: a new source of health hazard for farmers?,” Environ Health Perspect
(2003) 111:1590–94.
51. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, “Action plan: Component V: pesticides and
other synthetic organic compounds,” www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.
htm?np_code=203docid=324.
52. U.S. Geological Survey, Herbicides in Rainfall across the Midwestern and Northeastern United
States, 1990–91 (1998), http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/fact-sheets/fs.181-97.html.
54. J. Eilperin, “In California, agriculture takes center stage in pollution debate,” Washington
Post Sept. 26, 2005:A1.

Argument #6. Less Animal Suffering (pp. 113–139)
1. Congressional Record July 9, 2001:S7310–11.
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS),
Livestock Slaughter 2002 Summary (Washington, DC, 2003), p. 1.
3. USDA NASS, Poultry Slaughter 2002 Summary (Washington, DC, 2003), pp. 2–3.
4. American Meat Institute, Animal handling frequently asked questions, www.
animalhandling.org/faqs.htm.
5. D. Barboza, “Animals seeking happiness,” New York Times June 29, 2003:4-5.
6. V. Hirsch, Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe (Michigan
State University, Detroit College of Law, Animal Legal and Historical Center, 2003),
www.animallaw.info/articles/dduschick.htm#3.


7. For cattle, hogs, and sheep slaughtered in commercial plants and on farms: USDA
NASS, Livestock Slaughter 2004 Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/
livestock/pls-bban/lsan0305.pdf; for poultry: USDA NASS, Poultry Slaughter 2004 Annual
Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/poultry/ppy-bban/pslaan05.
pdf. These numbers omit hundreds of millions of additional animals (mostly chickens)
that die (due to injury or illness) or are killed (such as male chicks by the egg industry)
before they got to slaughterhouses.
8. M. Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy (New
York: St. Martin’s Griffon, 2002).
9. B.E. Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1995), p. 100.
10. C.W. Arave and J.L. Albright, “Animal welfare issues: dairy,” in R.D. Reynells and
B.R. Eastwood, eds., Animal Welfare Issues Compendium: A Collection of 14 Discussion Papers
(Washington, DC: USDA, Cooperative State Research Extension Education Service,
Plant and Animal Production, Protection and Processing, 1997), www.nal.usda.gov/
awic/pubs/97issues.htm, p. 63; Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, pp. 102–03; and C. Phillips,
Cattle Behaviour and Welfare, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), p. 211.
11. S.M. Abutarbush and O.M. Radostits, “Obstruction of the small intestine caused by a
hairball in 2 young calves,” Can Vet J (2004) 45(4):324–25.
12. Phillips, Cattle Behaviour.
13. T. Field, “Effects of hot iron branding on value of cattle hides,” The Final Report of the
National Beef Quality Audit, 1991 (Englewood, CO: National Cattlemen’s Association,
1992), p. 127; cited in Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, p. 58.
14. Arave and Albright, “Dairy,” p. 60.
15. Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, p. 61; and Rollin, university distinguished professor, Colorado
State University, email to Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Aug. 24, 2004.
17. Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, p. 62.
18. Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, pp. 62–63.
19. R. Cobb, “Horns on domestic farm animals,” Working with Farm Animals course
materials, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/
AnSci103/horns.html.
22. Phillips, Cattle Behaviour, p. 214.
23. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, The Animal Welfare Act/The Animal Welfare
Ordinance (2004), www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/89/74/356685f8.pdf; and R. Silvanic,
“Dairy production in Sweden,” www.vetmed.iastate.edu/academics/international/
recenttrips/sweden2003/studentpapers/swedendairySilvanic.pdf.
26. D.E. Granstrom, “Agricultural (nonbiomedical) animal research outside the laboratory:
a review of guidelines for institutional animal care and use committees,” ILAR J (2003)
44(3): 206–10.
27. J.A. Mench and P.B. Siegel, “Animal welfare issues: poultry,” in Reynells and Eastwood,
eds., Animal Welfare Issues Compendium, p. 105; and Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, p. 134.
28. M.E. Ensminger, Animal Science, 9th ed. (Danville, IL: Interstate Publishing, 1991), p. 184.

Notes • 213

29. The Mini Cooper is 142.8 by 75.8 inches, or 75.2 square feet. “Mini Features
and Specs, 2003,” BMW of North America, www.miniusa.com/link/ourcars/
features/minicooper/exterior/dimensions/none.
30. S.L. Davis and P.R. Cheek, “Do domestic animals have minds and the ability to think? A
provisional sample of opinions on the question,” J Anim Sci (1998) 76:2072–79.
31. S.A. Ewing, D.C. Lay, E. von Berell, Farm Animal Well-Being: Stress Physiology, Animal
Behavior, and Environmental Design (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999), p. 222;
Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, pp. 76, 91; and Alberta Pork, “What is a gestation crate?,”
www.albertapork.com/news.aspx?NavigationID=1456.
33. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAOSTAT, http://apps.
fao.org/faostat/collections?version=exthasbulk=0subset=agriculture, accessed Aug.
11, 2004; and Department for Environment and Rural Affairs, “Introduction to veterinary
surveillance and emerging diseases,” in Animal Health 2000; The Chief Veterinary Officer’s
Report for 2000 (London, 2001), ch. A4.
34. J. Barker, Safety in Swine Production Systems (Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Agency, 1996), www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/pih104.html.
35. Compassion Over Killing, “About ISE,” www.isecruelty.com/aboutise.php.
36. Ewing, Lay, and von Berell, Farm Animal Well-Being, p. 250.
37. United Egg Producers, United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg
Laying Flocks, 2005, 2nd ed., www.uepcertified.com/docs/2005_UEPanimal_welfare_
guidelines.pdf.
38. USDA, “USDA releases estimates of farm production losses,” Release No. 0385.05, Sept.
20, 2005.
39. Scully, Dominion.
40. Mench and Siegel, “Poultry,” p. 101; and “Laying down minimum standards for the
protection of laying hens,” Official Journal of the European Communities, Council Directive
1999/74/Ec, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1999/l_203/l_20319990803en00530057.
pdf.
43. C. Druce and P. Lymbery, Outlawed in Europe: Three Decades of Progress in Europe (Animal
Rights International, 2001), www.ari-online.org/pages/europe1.html.
44. S. Romero, “Virus takes a toll on Texas poultry industry,” New York Times May 16, 2003:
C1; and “Avian flu found on Maryland farm,” Washington Post Mar. 7, 2004:C3.
47. B. Faye, F. Lescourret, N. Dorr, et al., “Interrelationships between herd management
practices and udder health status using canonical correspondence analysis,” Prev Vet
Med (1997) 32:171–92.
48. Arave and Albright, “Dairy.”
49. Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, p. 106; and Arave and Albright, “Dairy,” p. 59.
50. I.R. Dohoo, K. Leslie, L. DesCôteaux, et al., “A meta-analysis review of the effects of
recombinant bovine somatotropin: 1. Methodology and effects on production, 2. Effects
on animal health, reproductive performance, and culling,” Can J Vet Res (2003) 67(4):241-
64; and Monsanto, “Posilac,” www.monsantodairy.com/.


52. United Egg Producers, Animal Husbandry Guidelines.
53. Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare, pp. 103–04; Ewing, Lay, and von Berrell, Farm Animal Well-
Being, pp. 189–91; and Phillips, Cattle Behavior, p. 210.
54. Ewing, Lay, and von Berrell, Farm Animal Well-Being, pp. 189–91.
56. Phillips, Cattle Behavior, p. 213.
57. Ewing, Lay, and von Berrell, Farm Animal Well-Being, p. 220.
58. Y. Hyun, M. Ellis, G. Riskowski, and R.W. Johnson, “Growth performance of pigs
subjected to multiple concurrent environmental stressors,” J Anim Sci (1998) 76:721–77.
60. P.J. Holden and J. McGlone, “Animal welfare issues: swine,” in Reynells and Eastwood,
Animal Welfare Issues Compendium, p. 127.
63. Ewing, Lay, and von Berrell, Farm Animal Well-Being, pp. 179 and 194–95.
67. A.B. Webster, “Behavior of chickens” in D.D. Bell and W.D. Weaver, eds., Commercial Chicken
Meat and Egg Production (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002), pp. 71–86.
70. Compassion Over Killing, A COK Report: Animal Suffering in the Broiler Industry
(Washington, DC, 2004).
71. C.J. Savory, K. Maros, and S.M. Rutter, “Assessment of hunger in growing broiler breeders
in relation to a commercial restricted feeding programme,” Animal Welfare (1993) 2:131–
52; and C.J. Savory and K. Maros, “Influence of degree of food restriction, age, and time
of day on behaviour of broiler breeder chickens,” Behavioural Processes (1993) 29:179–90.
72. D. Sainsbury, Animal Health, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science Ltd, 1998), p. 2.
73. Mench and Siegel, “Poultry,” p. 101.
74. Sainsbury, Animal Health, p. 2.
75. M.E. Ensminger and R.C. Perry, Beef Cattle Science, 7th ed. (Danville, IL: Interstate
Publishing, 1997), pp. 300–06; E. Schlosser, Fast Food Nation (New York: HarperCollins
Perennial, 2002), p. 202; R.D. Shaver, “By-product feedstuffs in dairy cattle diets in the
Upper Midwest,” www.wisc.edu/dysci/uwex/nutritn/pubs/ByProducts/ByproductFeed
stuffs.html; and S.B. Blezinger, “Energy issues affect choices for cattle feed ingredients,”
Cattle Today Online, www.cattletoday.com/archive/2005/October/CT421.shtml.
76. USDA Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), www.ers.usda.gov/Data/
FoodConsumption/FoodAvailQueriable.aspx, accessed Aug. 11, 2005.
78. R.H. Poppenga, “Current environmental threats to animal health and productivity,” Vet
Clin North Am Food Anim Pract (2000) 16:545–58.
79. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Food and Drug Administration Pesticide
Program: Residue Monitoring 2000 (Washington, DC, 2001), p. 12.
80. S.M. Rhind, “Endocrine disrupting compounds and farm animals: their properties,
actions and routes of exposure,” Domest Anim Endocrinol (2002) 23:179–87.

Notes • 215

81. V. Ishler, J. Heinrichs, and G. Varga, From Feed to Milk: Understanding Rumen Function,”
Penn State Extension Circular 422 (1996), www.das.psu.edu/dairynutrition/documents/
rumen.pdf, p. 10; J.C. Plazier, “Feeding forage to prevent rumen acidosis in cattle”
(University of Manitoba, 2002), www.umanitoba.ca/afs/fiw/020704.html; and J. Couzin,
“Cattle diet linked to bacterial growth,” Science (1998) 281:1578.
82. F. Diez-Gonzalez, T.R. Callaway, M.G. Kizoulis, et al., “Grain feeding and the
dissemination of acid-resistant Escherichia coli from cattle,” Science (1998) 281:1666–68;
and J.B. Russell, F. Diez-Gonzalez, and G.N. Jarvis, “Potential effect of cattle diets on the
transmission of pathogenic Escherichia coli to humans,” Microbes Infect (2000) 2:45–53.
83. “High-grain cattle diets cause drug need,” Meat Processing May 23, 2001, www.meatnews.
com/index.cfm?fuseaction=ArticleartNum=1157.
84. D. Griffin, L. Perino, and D. Hudson, Feedlot Lameness (Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska, 1993), p. 1.
85. “Grain overload,” Merck Veterinary Manual, 9th ed. (2005), www.merckvetmanual.com/
mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/21703.htmword=high%2cgrain%2cdiet.
86. “Cattle die after feedlot seized,” Toronto Star Jan. 10, 2005:A4; and “Grain overload.”
87. “High-grain cattle diets cause drug need.”
88. Texas Cooperative Extension, “Animal disorders: bloat,” http://stephenville.tamu.edu/
~butler/foragesoftexas/animaldisorders/bloat.html.
89. “Cattle die after feedlot seized.”
91. Phillips, Cattle Behavior, pp. 210–11.
92. Z.O. Müller, “Economic aspects of recycled wastes,” in New Feed Resources: Proceedings of
a Technical Consultation Held in Rome, 22–24 Nov. 1976 (FAO), www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/
X6503E/X6503E14.htm.
93. Plazier, “Feeding forage”; and J.B. Russell, F. Diez-Gonzalez, and G.N. Jarvis, “Effects of
diet shifts on Escherichia coli in cattle,” J Dairy Sci (2000) 83(4):869.
94. The Innovation Group, “Sodium bicarbonate,” profile, www.the-innovation-group.com/
ChemProfiles/Sodium%20Bicarbonate.htm.
95. Rhind, “Endocrine disrupting compounds.”
96. H.B. Sewell, Growth Stimulants (Implants), University of Missouri-Columbia Agricultural
Pub. G2090 (1993), http://extension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/ansci/g02090.htm.
97. European Commission, Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to
Public Health: Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine
Meat and Meat Products (1999), http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scv/out21_en.pdf.
98. FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine, “The use of steroid hormones for growth
promotion in food-producing animals” (2002), www.fda.gov/cvm/hormones.htm; USDA
Foreign Agriculture Service, “A primer on beef hormones” (1999), http://www.useu.be/
issues/BeefPrimer022699.html; and World Health Organization, Evaluation of Certain
Veterinary Drug Residues in Food: 52nd Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives (2000), http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_893.pdf.
99. Confidential email to CSPI, May 30, 2006.
100. J. Raloff, “Hormones: here’s the beef,” Science News (2002) 161:10; E.F. Orlando, A.S. Kolok,
G. Binzcik, et al., “Endocrine-disrupting effects of cattle feedlot effluent on an aquatic
sentinel species, the fathead minnow,” Environ Health Perspect (2004) 112(5):A270; and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Funding opportunities: fate and effects of
hormones in waste from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOS),” http://
es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2006/2006_star_cafos.html.


101. E.F. Orlando, reproductive biologist, Florida Atlantic University, email to CSPI, May 16,
2006.
102. E. Weise, “Iowa, Minnesota are latest to test for dioxin in animal-feed probe,” USA Today
Mar. 26, 2003:9D.
103. J. Lee, “Sewer sludge spread on fields is fodder for lawsuits,” New York Times June 26,
2003:A20.
104. R.L. Mahler, P. Ernestine, and R. Taylor, Nitrate and Groundwater (Moscow, ID: University
of Idaho, 2002), www.uidaho.edu/wq/wqpubs/cis872.html.
105. D.G. McNeil Jr., “KFC supplier accused of cruelty to animals,” New York Times July 20,
2004:C2; and Pub. L. No. 95-445, 92 Stat. 1069 (1978).
106. As cited in Poppenga, “Current environmental threats.”
107. D. Grady and D.G. McNeil Jr, “Rules issued on animal feed and use of disabled cattle,”
New York Times Jan. 27, 2004:A12.
108. D.A. Shields and K.A. Mathews, Interstate Livestock Species (Washington, DC: USDA ERS,
2003), p. 4.
110. Shields and Mathews, Interstate Livestock, p. 4.
111. N.G. Gregory, Animal Welfare and Meat Science (New York: CABI Publishing, 1998), p. 18.
112. T. Grandin, “Perspectives on transportation issues: the importance of having physically
fit cattle and pigs” (2000), www.grandin.com/behaviour/perspectives.transportation.
issues.html.
113. S.D. Eischer, “Transportation of cattle in the dairy industry: current research and future
directions,” J Dairy Sci (2001) 84(suppl.):E19–23.
115. J.F. Currin and W.D. Whittier, Feeder and Stocker Health and Management Practices
(Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2000), p. 1.
116. N.R. Hartwig, “Bovine respiratory disease” (Iowa Beef Industry Council), www.iabeef.
org/Content/brd.aspx.
117. Gregory, Animal Welfare, p. 35; and D.G. McNeil Jr., “Inquiry finds lax federal inspections
at kosher meat plant,” New York Times Mar. 10, 2006:A13.
119. L. Compa, Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants (New
York: Human Rights Watch, 2004), p. 34.
120. World Society for the Protection of Animals, Industrial Animal Agriculture: The Next
Global Health Crisis? (London, 2004), p. 10.
121. Compa, Blood, Sweat, and Fear, p. 40.
122. J. Motavalli, “The case against meat,” E/Environ Mag (2002) 13(1):5.
123. Compa, Blood, Sweat, and Fear, pp. 33, 38–40, 42–43.
124. S. Greenhouse, “Rights group condemns meatpackers on job safety,” New York Times
Jan. 26, 2005:A13.
125. Schlosser, Fast Food Nation, p. 178.
126. T. Grandin, Survey of Federally Inspected Beef, Veal, Pork, and Sheep Slaughter Plants
(Washington, DC: USDA Agricultural Research Service, 1997).
127. Gregory, Animal Welfare, p. 15; and Grandin, Stunning and Handling, tables 1–3.

Notes • 217

129. Humane Farming Association, “HFA’s petition to Washington State, affidavit #16” (2005),
www.hfa.org/hot_topic/wash_petition2.html.
131. M. Warner, “Sharpton joins with an animal activist group in calling for a boycott of
KFC,” New York Times Feb. 2, 2005:C1.
133. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has
Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges (2004), www.gao.gov/
new.items/d04247.pdf, p. 1; Pub. L. No. 95–445, 92 Stat. 1069 (1978); and E. Williamson,
“Humane Society to sue over poultry slaughtering,” Washington Post Nov. 21, 2005:B2.
134. USDA ERS, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (Washington, DC, 2003), p.
3.1-9.
136. National Research Council (NRC), The Future Role of Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture
137. See American Beekeeping Federation, 2006 ABF Resolution CR12, pesticide registration
process, http://abfnet.org/?page_id=42; and North American Pollinator Protection
Campaign, “Plans and projects,” www.nappc.org/plansEn.html.
138. NRC, Future Role of Pesticides, p. 82.
139. M. Deinlein, When It Comes to Pesticides, Birds Are Sitting Ducks, Smithsonian Migratory
Bird Center Fact Sheet No. 8, http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/
MigratoryBirds/Fact_Sheets/fxsht8.pdf.
140. NRC, Future Role of Pesticides, p. 80.

Changing Your Own Diet (pp. 143–150)
1. American Cancer Society, “The complete guide—nutrition and physical activity,”
www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2X_Diet_and_Activity_Factors_That_
Affect_Risks.asp; American Diabetes Association, “Evidence-based nutrition principles
and recommendations for the treatment and prevention of diabetes and related
complications, Diabetes Care (2002) 25:S50–60; A.H. Lichtenstein, L.J. Appel, M. Brands,
et al., ”Diet and lifestyle recommendations revision 2006: a scientific statement from
the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee,” Circulation (2006) 114; American
Heart Association, “Our 2006 diet and lifestyle recommendations,” www.americanheart.
org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=851; American Institute for Cancer Research/World
Cancer Research Fund, Food, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective
(Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research, 1997); U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dietary Guidelines for
Americans (2005), www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/pdf/DGA2005.
pdf; and World Health Organization, “Obesity and overweight” (Geneva, 2003), www.
who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/.
2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Facts about the DASH Eating Plan
(rev. 2003), www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/hbp/dash/new_dash.pdf.
3. Adapted from NHLBI, DASH Eating Plan, p. 5.
4. American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, “Position of the American
Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: vegetarian diets,” J Am Diet Assoc (2003)
103:748–65; and G.E. Fraser, Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease: Studies of Seventh-
day Adventists and Other Vegetarians (New York: Oxford, 2003).
5. American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, “Vegetarian diets.”


6. V. Messina, V. Melina, and A.R. Mangels, “A new food guide for North
American vegetarians,” Can J Diet Prac Res (2003) 64:82–86, www.dietitians.
ca/news/downloads/Vegetarian_Food_Guide_for_NA.pdf.
7. Adapted from Messina, Melina, and Mangels, “New food guide.”
8. R. Obeid, J. Geisel, H. Schorr, et al., “The impact of vegetarianism on some
hematological parameters,” Eur J Haem (2002) 69:275–79; C. Lamberg-Allardt, M.
Karkkainen, R. Seppanen, et al., “Low serum 25–hydroxyvitamin D concentrations
and secondary hyperparathyroidism in middle-aged white strict vegetarians,” Am J
Clin Nutr (1993) 58:684–89; and E.H. Haddad, L.S. Berk, J.D. Kettering, et al., “Dietary
intake and biochemical, hematologic, and immune status of vegans compared with non-
vegetarians,” Am J Clin Nutr (1999) 70(suppl):586S–93S.
9. Calculations were made using the Eating Impact Calculator on the Center for Science in
the Public Interest’s Eating Green web site: www.eatinggreen.org.

Changing Government Policies (pp. 151–168)
1. M. Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (East Rutherford, NJ:
Penguin Press, 2006).
2. L.H. Baumgard, J.K. Sangster, and D.E. Bauman, “Milk fat synthesis in dairy cows is
progressively reduced by increasing supplemental amounts of trans-10, cis-12 conjugated
linoleic acid (CLA),” J Nutr (2001) 131:1764–69.
3. A.M. Fearon, C.S. Mayne, J.A.M. Beattie, et al., “Effect of level of oil inclusion in the diet
of dairy cows at pasture on animal performance and milk composition and properties,”
J Sci Food Agric (2004) 84:497–504.
4. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Anyone’s Guess: The Need for Nutrition
Labeling at Fast-Food and Other Chain Restaurants (2003), www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/
anyone_s_guess_final_web.pdf.
5. Associated Press, “EPA exempts factory farms from high pollution penalties,” Jan. 31,
2006.
6. American Public Health Association, “2003–7 Precautionary moratorium on new
concentrated animal feed operations,” Association News, www.apha.org/legislative/
policy/2003/2003-007.pdf.
7. Farm Foundation, The Future of Animal Agriculture in North America (Oak Brook, IL, 2006),
www.farmfoundation.org/projects/04-32ReportTranslations.htm.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Funding opportunities: fate and
effects of hormones in waste from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOS),”
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2006/2006_star_cafos.html.
9. “The curse of factory farms,” New York Times Aug. 30, 2002:A18.
10. EPA, Development Document for the Final Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (2002), accessible at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafodocs.cfm, pp. 8-1–11;
and Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Manure’s Impact on Rivers, Streams, and the Chesapeake
Bay (Annapolis, 2004), p. 18. A soil scientist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) who has studied phytase in hogs says that CAFO producers use whatever
feed is provided to them by the feed mill and/or the integrator. An obstacle is that hog
feed is pelletized, which can render the phytase enzyme less effective, but innovative
technology might solve that problem. D.R. Smith, Ph.D., USDA, Agricultural Research
Service, email to CSPI, Sept. 10, 2004.
11. EPA, Development Document, pp. 8-1–11; and Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Manure’s Impact.

Notes • 219

12. E. Brzostek, Environmental Quality Incentives Program program specialist, USDA,
National Resources Conservation Service, email to CSPI, Dec. 22, 2005.
13. Environmental Working Group, California Water Subsidies (2004), www.ewg.
org/reports/watersubsidies/.
14. C. Dimitri and L. Oberholtzer, “EU and U.S. organic markets face strong demand under
different policies,” Amber Waves (2006) 4(1):12–19.
15. V. Frances, Fair Agricultural Chemical Taxes (Washington, DC: Friends of the Earth, 1999),
www.foe.org/res/pubs/pdf/factreport.pdf.
16. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Sharing the Cost: Creating a Working Land Conservation
Trust Fund Through a Tax on Agricultural Inputs? (Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation
Society, 2003). This analysis notes that two federal programs, the Pittman-Robertson Act
and the Dingell-Johnson Act, fund wildlife and fisheries conservation, management,
education, and restoration programs through taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.
Thus, there are precedents for collecting taxes from certain sectors, distributing funds
back to the states, and then ensuring that the sectors that pay the taxes benefit from the
programs that are funded.
17. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Sharing the Cost.
18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Manure Policy and MINAS:
Regulating Nitrogen and Phosphorus Surpluses in Agriculture of the Netherlands (2005),
http://appli1.oecd.org/olis/2004doc.nsf/linkto/com-env-epoc-ctpa-cfa(2004)67-final; and
R. Naylor, H. Steinfeld, W. Falcon, et al., “Losing the links between livestock and land,”
Science (2005) Dec. 9:1621–22.
19. Farm subsidies are discussed more fully in the following documents: USDA Economic
Research Service, “The 2002 Farm Bill: provisions and economic implications,” www.
ers.usda.gov/Features/farmbill/; D.E. Ray, speaker, Agricultural Policy for the 21st Century
and the Legacy of the Wallaces, the John Pesek Colloquium on Sustainable Agriculture,
Mar. 3–4, 2004, www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/endeavors/pesekcolloquium/ISU-Pesek-
Pkg--04-Bro3.pdf; J.E. Frydenlund, The Erosion of Freedom to Farm, Backgrounder 1523
(Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 2002), www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/
BG1523.cfm?renderforprint=1; and Environmental Working Group, Farm subsidy
database, www.ewg.org:16080/farm/findings.php, accessed May 6, 2006.
20. The $500 million is the shortfall between what ranchers pay and what the federal
government pays for range management. Grazing fees to the U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) raise about $6 million a year. However, in 2000–01,
the total direct cost, paid by taxpayers, of range management was $132 million. Indirect
costs to both agencies for land management planning, habitat management, forest,
rangeland research, and other costs in 2001 were as high as $176 million for the Forest
Service and $104 million for BLM. The remainder of the federal subsidy is costs assumed
by other agencies. K. Moskowitz and C. Romaniello, Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal
Grazing Program (Tucson: Center for Biological Diversity, 2002), www.biologicaldiversity.
org/swcbd/Programs/grazing/Assessing_the_full_cost.pdf.
21. “Laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,” Official Journal
of the European Communities, Council Directive 1999/74/Ec, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/
pri/en/oj/dat/1999/l_203/l_20319990803en00530057.pdf; and FARM, “Farmed animal
treatment,” fact sheet, www.wfad.org/about/treatment.htm.
22. M. Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy (New
York: St. Martin’s Griffon, 2002).
23. Farm Animal Welfare Council, www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm.


Appendix A. A Bestiary of Foodborne Pathogens (pp. 171–176)
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Campylobacter infections: technical
information,” www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/ diseaseinfo/campylobacter_t.htm, accessed
Oct. 1, 2003.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (FDA
CFSAN), Bad Bug Book: Campylobacter jejuni (1992), www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap4.html.
3. FDA CFSAN, Bad Bug Book: Campylobacter jejuni; Guillain-Barré Syndrome Foundation
International, GBS: An Overview (Wynnewood, PA, 2002), www.guillain-barre.com/
overview.html; and J.C. Buzby, T. Roberts, and B. Allos, Estimated Annual Costs of
Campylobacter-Associated Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Agricultural Economics Report No. 756
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1997).
4. I.V. Wesley, S.J. Wells, K.M. Harmon, et al., “Fecal shedding of Campylobacter and
Arcobacter spp. in dairy cattle,” Appl Environ Microbiol (2000) 66(5):1994–2000.
5. CDC, “Campylobacter”; and A. Hingley, Campylobacter: Low Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning
Leader (Washington, DC: FDA, 1999), www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/599_bug.html.
6. FDA, “Enroflaxin for poultry; opportunity for hearing,” Docket No. 00N-1571, Fed Reg
(2000) 65(211):64954–65, www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/103100a.htm.
7. D. Vugia, A. Cronquist, J. Hadler, et al., “Preliminary FoodNet data on the incidence of
infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food—10 states, United States,
2005,” MMWR Weekly (2006) 55(14):392–95.
8. FDA CFSAN, Bad Bug Book: Clostridium perfringens, www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap11.
html.
9. P.S. Mead, L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, et al., “Food-related illness and death in the United
States,” Emerging Infectious Diseases (1999) 5:607–25; and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), Economics of Food-borne Disease (Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office, 2003).
10. B. Van Voris, “Jack in the Box ends E. coli suits,” National Law Journal Nov. 17, 1997.
11. USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS), “Beef … from farm to table,”
meat preparation fact sheet (2003), www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Beef_from_Farm_
to_Table/index.asp.
12. A.V. Tutenel, D. Pierard, J. Van Hoof, et al., “Molecular characterization of Escherichia
coli O157 contamination routes in a cattle slaughterhouse,” J Food Prot (2003) 66(9):1564–
69; and J.M. McEvoy, A.M. Doherty, J.J. Sheridan, et al., “The prevalence and spread
of Escherichia coli O157:H7 at a commercial beef abattoir,” J Appl Microbiol (2003)
95(2):255–66.
13. Vugia et al. “Preliminary FoodNet data.”
14. “Meat plants faulted on safety rules,” Washington Post Feb. 5, 2003:A24.
15. J.A. Crump, A.C. Sulka, A.J. Langer, et al., “An outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7
infections among visitors to a dairy farm,” N Eng. J Med (2002) 347(8):555–60; and CDC,
“Outbreaks of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections among children associated with farm
visits—Pennsylvania and Washington, 2000,” MMWR (2001) 50:293–97.
16. “More than 1,000 sickened in deadly E. coli outbreak,” Orlando Sentinel Sept. 18, 1999:A16.
17. CDC, “Listeriosis: technical information,” www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/
listeriosis_t.htm, accessed Oct. 1, 2003.
18. Vugia et al. “Preliminary FoodNet data.”
19. FDA CFSAN, Bad Bug Book: Listeria monocytogenes, www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap6.
html 92); FDA CFSAN and USDA FSIS, “Preventing foodborne listeriosis,” background
document (1992), http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/fsislist.html; and FDA CFSAN and

Notes • 221

USDA FSIS, “Listeria monocytogenes risk assessment questions and answers,” www.
foodsafety.gov/~dms/lmr2qa.html.
20. P.A. Beloeil, P. Fravalo, C. Chauvin, et al., “Listeria spp. contamination in piggeries:
comparison of three sites of environmental swabbing for detection and risk factor
hypothesis,” J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health (2003) 50:155–60.
21. CDC, “Listeriosis: general information,” www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/
listeriosis_g.htm, accessed Oct. 1, 2003. Outbreaks caused by vegetables are so rare that
the Partnership for Food Safety Education does not even list vegetables as a source for
Listeria. Partnership for Food Safety Education, “Organisms that can bug you: causes
and symptoms” (2000), www.fightbac.org/content/view/14/21/.
22. B. Rowland, “Listeriosis,” at Health A to Z: Your Family Health Site (2002), www.
healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/listeriosis.jsp.
23. USDA FSIS, “Listeriosis and pregnancy: what is your risk?,” foodborne illness and
disease fact sheet (2001), www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Listeriosis_and_Pregnancy_
What_is_Your_Risk/index.asp; and Mayo Clinic, “Meningitis,” www.mayoclinic.com/
health/meningitis/DS00118/dsection=3, accessed Dec. 28, 2005.
24. CDC, National Center for Infectious Diseases, “Fact sheet: variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
Disease” (2003), www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/vcjd/factsheet_nvcjd.htm, accessed Dec. 29,
2005.
25. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, “Cattlemen dispute report saying mad cow disease
may be in U.S.,” www.beefusa.org/newscattlemendisputereportsayingmadcowdisease
maybeinus9864.aspx, accessed Dec. 29, 2005.
26. National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit, “CJD figures” (Edinburgh:
Western General Hospital), www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm, accessed May 2, 2006;
and M. Enserink, “After the crisis: more questions about prions,” Science (2005)
Dec. 16:1756–58.
27. N. Hunter, “Scrapie and experimental BSE in sheep,” Br Med Bull (2003) 66:171–83; and
M.E. Bruce, “TSE strain variation,” Br Med Bull (2003) 66:99–108.
28. D. Taylor, “Inactivation of the BSE agent,” C R Acad Sci III (2002) 325:75–76; and H. Baron
and S.B. Prusiner, “Prion diseases,” in D.O. Fleming and D.L. Hunt, eds., Biological Safety,
Principles and Practices (Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2000), pp. 187–208.
29. CDC, “BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), or mad cow disease,” www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dvrd/bse/, accessed Nov. 22, 2005.
30. A. Binkley, “Canada, U.S. grapple with new BSE recommendations,” Food Chem
News (2003) 45:27; and J. Marsden, AMI Fact Sheet: Meat Derived by Advanced
Meat Recovery (Washington, DC: American Meat Institute, 2002), www.amif.org/
FactSheetAdvancedMeatRecovery.pdf.
31. MedicineNet.com, “Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), www.medicinenet.com/
variant_creutzfeldt-jakob_disease/article.htm, accessed Dec. 23, 2005.
32. USDA FSIS, “Beef.”
33. CDC, “Salmonellosis: technical information,” www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/
salmonellosis_t.htm, accessed Dec. 28, 2005; and CDC, “Salmonellosis”; and USDA ERS,
“Briefing room: economics of foodborne disease—Salmonella“ (2003), www.ers.usda.
gov/Briefing/FoodborneDisease/Salmonella.htm, accessed Oct. 16, 2003.
34. University of Washington School of Medicine, “Reiter’s syndrome,” www.orthop.
washington.edu/uw/tabID__3376/ItemID__52/mid__10313/Articles/Default.aspx,
accessed Oct. 17, 2003.
35. Vugia et al., “Preliminary FoodNet data.”
36. USDA FSIS, Focus on Beef (2002), www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/focusbeef.htm;
K. Todar, “Salmonella and salmonellosis,” in Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology


(University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Bacteriology), www.
textbookofbacteriology.net/salmonella.html, accessed Dec. 29, 2005; J. Ackerman, “Food:
How safe? How altered?,” Nat Geog May 2002:2–50; and D. Cole, L. Todd, and S. Wing,
“Concentrated swine feeding operations and public health: a review of occupational
and community health effects,” Env Health Perspect (2000) 108(8):685–89.
37. USDA, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS), Info Sheet: Salmonella
in United States Feedlots (Fort Collins, CO, 2001), www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/
nahms/feedlot/feedlot99/FD99salmonella.pdf; S.J. Wells, P.J. Fedorka-Cray, D.A. Dargatz,
et al., “Fecal shedding of Salmonella spp. by dairy cows on farm and at cull cow
markets,” J Food Prot. (2001) 64:3–11; J.S. Bailey, N.J. Stern, P. Fedorka-Cray, et al., “Sources
and movement of Salmonella through integrated poultry operations: a multistate
epidemiological investigation,” J Food Prot (2001) 64(11):1690–97; and USDA APHIS,
“Shedding of Salmonella by finisher hogs in the U.S.” (1997), www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/
ceah/ncahs/nahms/swine/swine95/sw95salm.pdf.
38. D.G. White, S. Zhao, R. Sudler, et al., “The isolation of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella from
retail ground meats,” New Engl J Med (2001) 345:1147–53.
39. CDC, “Salmonella enteriditis: general information” (2005), www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/
diseaseinfo/salment_g.htm, accessed Dec. 29, 2005.
40. USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System, “Salmonella enterica serotype
enteritidis in table egg layers in the U.S.” (2000), www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/
nahms/poultry/layers99/lay99se.pdf, p. 1.
41. P.S. Holt, “Molting and Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis infection: the problem and
some solutions,” Poult Sci (2003) 82:1008–10.
42. FDA CFSAN, Bad Bug Book: Staphylococcus aureus, www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap3.
html; Predicala et al., “Bioaerosols in swine barns”; and M. Hajmeer, “Staphylococcus
aureus“ (Davis, CA: University of California, Department of Population Health and
Reproduction, 2005), www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/PHR/PHR150/2005/aureus.PDF.
43. FDA CFSAN, Bad Bug Book: Staphylococcus aureus.
44. Partnership for Food Safety Education, Ten Least Wanted Foodborne Pathogens (2003),
www.fightbac.org/10least.cfm, accessed July 1, 2004.
45. CDC, Toxoplasma Infection (Division of Parasitic Diseases, 2003), www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dpd/parasites/toxoplasmosis/2004_PDF_Toxoplasmosis.pdf; and J.D. Kravetz and
D.G. Federman, “Toxoplasmosis in pregnancy,” Am J Med (2005) 118:212–16.

Photo Credits

We thank the following sources for their courtesy in providing images for
this book.

 Animal Welfare Institute, www.awionline.org – p. xii
 Compassion Over Killing – pp. 119 (top), 122
 Corbis – cover photo; pp. 117, 129
 Courtesy of Cynthia Goldsmith, Jacqueline Katz, and Sherif R. Zaki, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention – p. 67
 Coronary Health Improvement Project – p. 27
 Dale Farm Limited – p. 155 (top)
 Augustine G. DiGiovanna, Salisbury University (© 2004, used with permission)
– p. 30
 Farm Sanctuary – pp. 113, 120, 121, 124, 125
 Janet Green – pp. 93, 111
 Courtesy Not Just For Vegetarians—Delicious Homestyle Cooking, The Meatless Way
by Geraldine Hartman – pp. 22, 57, 149
 Jason Hoverman, University of Pittsburgh – p. 85
 Barbara Hunt – p. 147
 Courtesy of the Kowalcyk family – p. 63
 Milk Processor Education Program – p. 157

223


 National Aeronautics and Space Administration – p. 98
 National Cancer Institute (Renee Comet, photographer) – p. 18
 National Dairy Council – p. 44
 National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Dis-
ease, Rocky Mountain Laboratories – p. 62
 National Food Administration of Sweden – p. 155 (bottom)
 National Park Service – p. 137
 Photodisc – frontispiece, p. 147
 Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary – p. 166
 Joe Skorupa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – p. 95
 U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol – p. 151
 U.S. Department of Agriculture – pp. 103, 133, 164
 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service – frontispiece
(Michael Macneil, photographer), pp. vii, xiv, 9, 19, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, 47, 50,
51, 53, 72, 73, 119 (bottom), 131, 138, 143, 153, 162 (top)
 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service – pp.
ix, xi, xiii, 10, 13, 65, 69, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 87, 91, 94, 101, 106, 112, 116, 139,
159, 161, 162 (bottom), 163
 Prof. Kurt Wüthrich, ETH Zürich – p. 66

Index

Abbott Laboratories, 69 nitrous oxide and, 107–08
Acid rain, 108 odor and, 110
Advanced meat recovery (AMR), 174 overview of, 103–04
Advertising, 157 particulate matter and, 106, 109, 111
Agricultural Health Study (National pesticides and, 112, 161
Cancer Institute), 54 recommendations to prevent, 159,
Agricultural practices. See also Fertiliz- 161–62
ers; Livestock production; Soil volatile organic compounds and,
affecting non-farm animals, 136–38 106, 110
compaction and, 78 Alatorre, José, 103
environmental damage from, xii, 77, Algal blooms, 98
94–100 Alpha-linolenic acid, 11, 51
erosion and, 76–77 American Academy of Pediatrics, 57, 69
global, xiii American Beekeeping Federation, 138
of small vs. large farms, 152 American Cancer Society, 42, 57, 144
AgriProcessors Inc., 134 American Diabetes Association, 144
Air pollution American Dietetic Association, 147
ammonia and, 104–06 American Grass Fed Beef, 10
effects of, 106–07 American Heart Association, 11, 46, 57, 144
fertilizers and, 108–09, 161 American Institute for Cancer Research, 144
from manure, 104–06, 109–10, 158 American Meat Institute, 114
methane and, 107 American Medical Association, 69
nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide American Public Health Association,
and, 108 69, 158

225


American Society of Agricultural Engi- in livestock, 3, 69, 70, 157
neers, 78 in manure contaminate water, 100
Ammonia resistance to, 68–70
in air, 104–07 Antioxidants, 51
in water, 99–100 Araisa, Enrique, 103
Ammonium nitrate, 80 Arsenic pollution, 82, 84
Anderson, James W., 37, 39 Atrazine, 53, 84, 85, 100, 112
Animal feed Avian flu, 67, 70–71, 123
antibiotics in, 129, 130
Bacillus, 67
grain-based, 128–30
Bacteria. See also specific bacteria
overview of, 127–28
in cattle, 129
pesticides in, 130, 132
foodborne illness from, viii, 60–66
recommendations to reduce use of,
in particulate matter, 111
163, 166
Battery cages, 121, 122, 167
rendered farm animals in, 133
Bayer Corporation, 69
sewage sludge in, 132
Beans. See Legumes
Animal products. See also Beef; Dairy
Beef. See also Animal products; Cattle;
products; Pigs/pork; Poultry; specific
Livestock production
products
cancer and, 3, 8, 10, 42–43
environmental contaminants in,
consumption of, 18
52–56
foodborne illness from, 61, 62
fats and cholesterol in, 20, 40–41
grain- vs. grass-fed, xi, 3–13
heterocyclic amines and polycyclic
heart disease and, 8, 10, 41
aromatic hydrocarbons in, 52
hypertension and, 41–42
mercury in, 56
nutrition labeling for, 155
promotion of unhealthy, 157
reducing fat content in, 154
Animal protein
USDA grades for, 5–9
irrigation water to produce, 88, 89
water use to produce, 88–89, 93–94,
sources of, 18
101
Animals
Beta-carotene, 51
effect of fertilizers and manure on,
Biosolids fertilizer, 84, 85
96, 97
Bird flu. See Avian flu
legislation affecting, 114, 132, 133
Blue baby syndrome, 132
number of slaughtered, 112
Bone density
protections for laboratory, 114
fruits and vegetables and, 35–36
Animal welfare
potassium and, 50
agricultural practices and, 136–38,
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
166–67
(BSE). See Mad cow disease
diet and, 127–33, 144, 147
Branding, 116
on farms, 115–27
Brown, Lester, xiii
overview of, x, 113–15
Bycatch, 115
slaughterhouse procedures and,
Byrd, Robert, 113
134–36
suggestions to improve, 138–39, Calcium, 43
144–45, 147, 148, 167–68 Campylobacter jejuni, 60, 62, 68, 69,
transport methods and, 133–34 171–72
Animal welfare laws, 114 Cancer. See also specific types of cancer
Antacids, 130 among agricultural workers, 54–55
Antibiotics in animals, 132
in animal feed, 129, 130 beta-carotene supplements and, 51

Index • 227

conjugated linoleic acid and, 11 animal products and, 40–41
dairy products and, 44–45 diet and, 23–25
diet and, 17–18, 24, 29 eggs and, 45, 46
fish and, 46 heart disease and, 20, 27
fruits and vegetables and, 33–35 Ciguatoxin, 47
health-care costs and, 21 Citrus fruits, 36
obesity and, 18 Clean Air Act of 1990, 97, 159
pesticides and, 53–55 Clean Water Act permits, 160
red meat and, 3, 8, 10, 42–43 Clostridium perfringens, 172
selenium and, 51 Coleman, 9
Carbajal, Jesus Soto, 135 Colon cancer
Carbohydrates, 30 diet and, 24
Carbon dioxide, x red meat and, 3, 8, 10, 42
Cargill, 164 Community Right-to-Know laws, 159
Carotenoids, 51 Compaction, 78
Castration, 114, 116–17, 131 Concentrated animal feeding opera-
Cattle. See also Beef; Dairy prod- tions (CAFOs), 99, 158–60
ucts; Livestock production; Milk Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), 10–11, 155
production Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
antibiotics use in, 3, 69, 70, 157 (Department of Agriculture), 79
branding of, 116 Conservation tillage, 79
carcass traits of, 5–7 Corn production, 164–65
castration of, 116–17 Coronary Health Improvement Project
confinement of, 119 (CHIP), 28–29
dehorning of, 118 Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, 66, 174
fat content breeds of, 6 Cruciferous vegetables, 36
hormones in beef, 117, 124, 131, 160 Cryptosporidium parvum, 65
hormones in dairy, 123
neurotic behavior in, 124–25 Dairy products. See also Animal prod-
reducing fat content of, 154 ucts; Milk production
separation of calves from mothers cancer and, 44–45
and, 115–16 consumption of, 18
tail docking of, 118 fats and cholesterol in, 40–41
Cattlemen’s Beef Board, 9 foodborne illness from, 61
Center for Biosecurity (University of health benefits of, 43–44
Pittsburgh), 71 heart disease and, 44
Center for Science in the Public Interest reducing fat content of, 154–55
(CSPI), 20, 56, 61, 149, 177 Dead zone (Gulf of Mexico), ix, 97–98
Centers for Disease Control and Pre- Debeaking, 119
vention (CDC), 60, 61, 69, 70 Dehorning, 118
Central Arizona Project, 92 Denitrification, 81
Central Utah Project, 92 Denmark, 70
Central Valley Project (California), 92, 161 Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Chemical fertilizers, 80–82, 84, 85. See cattle inspection and, 117
also Fertilizers Conservation Compliance provi-
Chickens. See Poultry sions of, 162–63
Children Continuing Survey of Food Intake, 24
antibiotic-resistant infections and, 69 diet estimates of, 19, 21
pesticides and, 55, 56 Environmental Quality Incentives
Cholesterol level Program, 160


food labels and, 155 Dietary Approaches to Stop Hyperten-
food safety and, 71–72 sion (DASH) Eating Plan, 28, 145
Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, Dietary fiber, 47–49
153 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Commit-
health and food-safety responsibili- tee, 45
ties of, 156 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 19, 36,
irrigation water and, 91, 92, 95 40, 46, 144, 153
meat grades and, 5–9 Dietitians of Canada, 147
non-farm animals and, 136–38 Diet Scorecard, 149, 150
politics and, xiv Dioxins, 47, 132
processed meat fat content and, 154 Disease, 17–18, 21–22. See also Cancer;
promotion of unhealthy foods and, 157 Diabetes; Foodborne illness; Heart
sex hormones and, 131 disease; Hypertension; Stroke; spe-
soil conservation program and, 79 cific diseases
Department of Health and Human Ser- Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), 11, 46, 50, 51
vices, 52, 68 Downer cows, 123–24
Detoeing, 119 Duckett, Susan, 7
DeWaal, Caroline Smith, 72 Dust-bathing, 122
DHA. See Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)
Diabetes Earth Policy Institute, xiii
diet and, 24, 25, 30–31 Ecological impact
health-care costs and, 21 of diets, x–xi
obesity and, 18 of plant diet, 21
processed meat and, 43 Economics, 21
whole grains and, 38 Edmondson, Drew, 96–97
Diehl, Hans, 28 Eggs. See also Poultry
Diet. See also specific diets consumption of, 18
American, vii–viii, 18–19, 21, 145 foodborne illness from, 62, 156
animal welfare and, 127–33, 144, 147 heart disease and, 45–46
cancer and, 17–18, 24, 29 Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), 11, 46, 50, 51
cholesterol level and, 23–25 Endocrine-disrupting compounds
DASH Eating Plan, 28, 145, 146 (EDCs), 130
diabetes and, 24, 25, 30–31 Environmental issues. See also specific
disease and, 17–18, 21–31 (See also issues
specific diseases) air pollution as, 103–12, 159
environmental issues and, 158–69 animal product contaminants and,
global warming and, x–xi 52–56
health experts’ advice on, 32, 34, feed grain use and, 163, 166
56–57, 143–44 government policies and, 158–66
heart disease and, 17–18, 20, 25, 26–29 livestock production and, viii–xi, 9–12
hypertension and, 23–25, 27–29 overgrazing and, 166
low-fat vegetarian, 27–29 pesticide and fertilizer use and, 161–63
Mediterranean, 28, 145–46 water pollution as, 77, 94–100, 159–60
obesity and, 18, 25–26 water use as, 160–61
promotion of unhealthy foods and, 157 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
recommendations for changing, 143–49 air pollution and, 158
stroke and, 17–18, 23, 46 fertilizer use and, 82, 96
vegan, 24–26, 147 fish consumption and, 56
vegetarian, 21, 24–31, 49, 147 manure use and, 158
web sites with information on, 177–79 water pollution and, 94, 98–100, 158

Index • 229

Environmental Quality Incentives Pro- heart disease and, 46, 50
gram (EQIP) (Department of Agri- mercury in, 47, 56
culture), 160 5 A Day program (Department of
Environmental Working Group (EWG), Health and Human Services), 153
55–56, 82, 92, 165 Flavonoids, 51
EPA. See Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) Fluoroquinolones, 69
Erosion Foie gras, 167
cropland, 73, 74, 76–77, 85, 88 Folate, 49
from irrigation, 91, 95–96, 101 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
methods to reduce, 79, 80, 162 animal feed and, 128
pesticide runoff and, 100 fish consumption guidelines and, 56
soil compaction and, 78 food safety and, 68, 69, 71–72
water, 79n health and food-safety responsibili-
wind, 79n ties of, 156
Escherichia coli, 60, 63–66, 129, 172–73 nuts and, 38–39
Eshel, Gidon, x sex hormones and, 131
Esselstyn, Caldwell, 30 Foodborne illness
European Prospective Investigation antibiotic resistance and, 68–70
into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), costs of, 72
24, 25, 42, 46 eggs and, 62, 156
European Union, 70, 131, 162, 163, 167 food-safety system and, 71–72
Exercise. See Physical activity increased risk for, 63–64
Exotic weeds, 78 livestock production and, 61, 63–67,
72, 156
Farm Animal Welfare Council (United from manure, viii, 65–66
Kingdom), 167 overview of, 59
Farm Bill of 2002, 162, 165 pathogens responsible for, 171–76
Farmers’ markets, 154 poultry-related influenza and, 67, 71
Farm subsidy programs, 92, 161–66 prevention of, 156–57
Fatty acids sources of, 60–66
in beef, 11 Food labeling, 155–56
omega-3, 11, 46, 50–51 Food pyramids
Fertilizers DASH, 145
affecting non-farm animals and, 137 Mediterranean, 146
biosolids as, 84, 85 vegetarian, 147
chemical, 80–82, 84, 85 Food-safety system. See also Foodborne
environmental issues related to, illness
96–100, 108–10, 158 federal government responsibility
manure as, 4, 65, 83–84 for, 71–72, 156
recommendations to reduce use of, risks to, 62–64
161–63 Food Stamp program, 153
sewage waste as, 132 Framingham Heart Study, 41
Fiber. See Dietary fiber Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program
Fish (Department of Agriculture), 153, 165
bycatch and, 115 Fruits
cancer and, 46 dietary recommendations for, 36–37, 153
contaminants in, 47, 55–56 foodborne illness from, 64–65
dietary recommendations for, 11 health benefits of, 31–36
extinction issues for, 46 programs to increase consumption
health benefits of, 46 of, 153–54


statistics regarding consumption of, 21 health claims regarding, 10–11
weight loss and, 35 Greenhouse gases, x, 82, 104, 107, 108.
See also specific gases
Gastroenteritis, 65
Groundwater, 89–90
Gastrointestinal health, 38
Groundwater Protection Act (Iowa), 162
Gates, Larry, 73
Growth hormone, 123
General Mills, 164
Guillain-Barré Syndrome, 62
Gestation crates, 114, 120, 121, 125, 167
Gulf of Mexico
Global Resource Action Center for the
contaminated shellfish in, 47
Environment, 158
dead zone in, ix, 97–98
Global warming, x–xi, 108
nitrogen discharged into, 96
Glyphosate, 84, 85, 100
Government policies/practices. See also Hantavirus, 66
specific government agencies Hawthorne Valley Farms, 9
farm subsidies and, 164–65 Hayes, Tyrone, 85
food-safety regulation as, 71–72 Health-care costs, 21, 72
irrigation subsidies as, 161 Health issues. See also Foodborne ill-
Government policy recommendations ness; specific diseases
to discontinue promotion of un- diet and, 17–18, 21–22, 32, 34
healthy meat and dairy foods, 157 from foodborne bacteria, viii
for healthy meals at government- government programs addressing, 152
run facilities, 158 from hydrogen sulfide, 109–110
to help move to more plant-based from pesticide use, 53–55
diet, 151–52 related to refined foods, xi–xii, 18, 148
to improve animal welfare, 166–68 Heart disease
to improve environment, 158–67 animal products and, 41–42
to increase fruit and vegetable con- beef and, 8, 10, 41
sumption, 153–54 dairy products and, 44
for more effective food labeling, 155–56 decreasing risk for, 27–28
to prevent antibiotic resistance, 157 diet and, 17–18, 20, 25, 26–29
to prevent foodborne illness, 156 dietary fiber and, 48
to reduce fat content of meat, 154 dietary recommendations for people
to reduce fat content of milk, 154–55 with, 11
to reduce feed grain use, 163, 166 eggs and, 45–46
Grain-fed beef. See also Animal feed; fish and, 46, 50
Beef; Livestock production fruits and vegetables and, 33
background of, 3–7 health-care costs and, 21
environmental issues related to, 11, legumes and, 39–40
13, 163 nuts and, 38–39
fat content in, 5–8 obesity and, 18
Grain production reversal of, 29–30
effects on soil of, 73 unsaturated oils and, 50
government subsidies and, 164–65 whole grains and, 37
for livestock feed, viii–ix, 80 Heterocyclic amines (HCAs), 52
water for, 88–89 High blood pressure. See Hypertension
Grandin, Temple, 136 Hogs. See Pigs/pork
Grass-fed beef. See also Beef; Livestock Hormones
production in beef cattle, 117, 124, 131, 160
environmental issues and, xi, 3, 13 bovine growth, 123, 124, 160
fat content in, 5–8, 10 in dairy cattle (rBST), 123

Index • 231

pesticide use and, 85, 130 ecological impact and, x, xi
sex, 131 food pyramid for, 147–48
water pollution and, 160 Laura’s Lean Beef, 9
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, Leaf, Alexander, 28
134, 136, 168 Legumes, 39–40
Human Rights Watch, 135 Leopold Center for sustainable Agri-
Hurricane Katrina, 122 culture, 162
Hydrogen fluoride, 97 Lignans, 51
Hydrogen sulfide, 106, 109–10 Lingins, 51
Hypertension Listeria, 60, 67, 173–74
animal products and, 41–42 Listeria monocytogenes, 60
dairy products and, 44 Livestock production. See also Agri-
diet and, 23–25, 27–29 cultural practices; Animal welfare;
health-care costs and, 21 Beef; Cattle; Pigs/pork
obesity and, 18 antibiotics use in, 3, 69, 70, 157
potassium and, 50 background of, 3–4
Hypoxia, 96, 98 cattle age and, 7–8
Influenza, avian, 67, 70–71, 123 environmental issues related to,
Insoluble fiber, 48 viii–xi, 9–12, 144
Institute of Medicine exotic weeds and, 78
antibiotics in animals and, 69 foodborne illness and, 61, 63–67, 72,
conjugated linoleic acid and, 10–11 156, 172–76
dietary recommendations for grain- vs. grass-fed, xi, 3–13
Women, Infants, and Children soil and, 75–76
(WIC) program, 153 treatment of animals and, 12
fiber and, 49 water use for, 88–89, 93–94
saturated fat and, 40 Loan deficiency payments, 164–65
Intervention studies, 26–27 Longevity, 22, 23
Iowa Pork Producers Association, 70 Low-fat vegetarian diets, 27–29
Irrigation. See also Water use Lung cancer, 51
economics of, 92–93 Lyon Diet Heart Study, 28
environmental problems resulting Maceration, 119
from, 76, 87, 95–96, 101, 160 Mad cow disease, 66, 116, 133, 156, 168,
erosion from, 91, 95–96, 101 174–75
government policies on, 161 Mandell, Ira, 5, 8
methods of, 90–91 Manure
statistics regarding, 7, 11, 88–90 air pollution from, 104–06, 109–10, 158
Isoflavones, 51 ammonia and, 99–100
Jenkins, David, 27–28, 30 as fertilizer, 4, 65, 83–84
foodborne illness from, viii, 65–66
Kosher meat, 134
livestock production and, viii, 10, 12,
Kowalcyk, Kevin, 63
83, 86, 98–99
Kris-Etherton, Penny, 38
water pollution from, 96, 98–100,
Kummer, Corby, 8
158–60
Lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. See also Veg- Manure lagoons, 18, 94, 105, 107, 159, 160
etarian diets Marine algae, 98
animal welfare and, 147 Martin, Pamela, x
cholesterol level and, 24 Mastitis, 123
dietary fiber intake and, 49 Maverick Ranch, 9


McGovern, George, xiv diet and, 18, 25–26
Meat. See Beef; Cattle; Pigs/pork; Pro- fruits and vegetables and, 35
cessed meat health-care costs and, 21
Mediterranean diet, 28, 145–46 Observational studies, 22
Mercury, 47, 56 Odor, 104, 110
Meta-analyses, 25 Ogallala Aquifer, 89
Methane, viii, x, 10, 12, 104–07 Oldways, 145, 146
Metolachlor, 100 Omaha Steaks, 3
Microbiotic crust, 78 Omega-3 fatty acids
Milk production. See also Dairy products beef and, 11
fat content reduction and, 154–55 fish and, 46
methods used in, 123–24 sources of, 50–51
Mills, Paul K., 54 Organophosphate pesticides, 55
Monterey Bay Aquarium, 46 Orlando, Edward, 131
Morton’s, 3 Ornish, Dean, 29, 30
National Academy of Sciences, 69–70 Osteoporosis, 43
National Cancer Institute, 34, 48, 54 Osterholm, Michael, 67
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, O’Toole, Tara, 71
9, 166 Overfishing, 46
National Cholesterol Education Pro- Overgrazing, 166
gram, 28 Oxford Vegetarian Study, 24, 25, 45
National Institute for Occupational Ozone depletion, 108
Safety and Health, 105, 109 Pancreatic cancer, 43
National Pollution Discharge and Parasites, 60, 82, 84, 122
Elimination System (Environmental Pariza, Michael, 10
Protection Agency), 99 Particulate matter, 106, 109, 111–12
National Research Council, 106 PBDEs. See Polybrominated diphenyl
National Science and Technology ethers (PBDEs)
Council, 98 PCBs. See Polychlorinated biphenyls
National Toxicology Program (Depart- (PCBs)
ment of Health and Human Ser- Peanuts, 38, 39
vices), 52 People for the Ethical Treatment of Ani-
Natural Resources Defense Council, 92 mals (PETA), 134
Neural tube defect, 49 Pesticides
Nitric oxide, 81, 82, 106, 108, 109 affecting non-farm animals, 136–38
Nitrogen, 74, 75, 80–83, 96–99, 106, 107, in animal feed, 130, 132
110, 132, 160, 162, 163
environmental and health effects of,
Nitrogen dioxide, 81, 82, 108
ix, 53, 84–85, 100, 112, 158, 161–63
Nitrogen oxides (NOx), 81–82, 108, 109
recommendations to reduce use of,
Nitrous oxide, x, 106–08
161–63
North American Pollinator Protection
Pfiesteria, 66
Campaign, 138
Phosphate, 97
Norwalk-like viruses, 60
Phosphorus, 72, 83, 96, 99, 160, 163
Nurses’ Health Study (Harvard School
Photochemicals, 51–52
of Public Health), 26, 37, 42, 44
Physical activity
Nutrition Facts label (Department of
health and, 17, 18, 32
Agriculture), 155
heart disease and, 29–30
Nuts, 38–39
Mediterranean diet and, 146
Obesity Phytase, 160

Index • 233

Phytochemicals, 51–52 diet and, 24
Phytosterols, 27, 51 fish and, 47
Pigs/pork lifestyle change to control, 29
antibiotic use for, 70, 157 pesticides and, 54
cancer from consumption of, 42 Protein. See Animal protein
confinement of, 120–21 Pseudomonas, 67
fertilizer use to produce, 81 Public Citizen, 158
hypertension from consumption of, 42
rBST (recombinant bovine somatotro-
influenza in, 67
pin), 123
neurotic behavior in, 125–26
Rectal cancer, 42
reducing fat content in, 154
Reduced tillage, 79
toxins consumed by, 128
Refined foods, xi–xii, 18, 19, 26, 30, 37,
water consumption by, 93
38, 49, 57, 148
Pilgrim’s Pride, 132
Reiter’s Syndrome, 62
Pimentel, David, 77n
Relyea, Rick, 85
Politics, xvii
Restaurants, 155–56
Pollan, Michael, xii, 152
Rollin, Bernard, 117, 122, 126, 134
Pollution. See Air pollution; Environ-
Roxarsone, 82
mental issues; Water pollution
Russell, James, 129
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs), 56 Sacks, Frank, 41
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 47, Salatin, Joel, 152
55–56, 130 Salinization, 96
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Salmon, 55–56
(PAHs), 52 Salmonella, 60–62, 64–66, 68–69, 156, 175
Polyunsaturated fat, 38, 50, 51 Salt, 19
Pork. See Pigs/pork Saturated fat
Potash and Phosphate Institute, 96 in animal products, 40–41
Potassium blood cholesterol levels and, 20
dairy products and, 43 Schechter, Arnold, 56
sources of, 49–50 Schlosser, Eric, 63, 135
Poultry. See also Eggs Scombrotoxin, 47
air pollution from, 106–07 Scully, Matthew, 114, 167
antibiotic use for, 69, 70, 157 Seafood Watch (Monterey Bay Aquar-
cattle products fed to, 66, 133 ium), 46
cruel treatment of, 114, 119, 121–23 Selenium, 51, 95
egg production by, 121, 124, 156 Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs), 23–24
fat and saturated fat in, 43 Sewage sludge, 132
foodborne pathogens in, 172, 175 Sex hormones, 131
influenza-infected, 67, 71 Shula, Dave, 4
neurotic behavior in, 126–27 Slaughter methods, 134–36
nutrition labeling for, 155 Smil, Vaclav, 109
Poultry litter, 132 Soft drinks, 19, 32, 148, 153
Prion, 66 Soil
Processed meat compaction of, 78
cancer and, 42, 43 erosion of, 76–77
fat content in, 154 exotic weeds and, 78
Prosilac, 123 fertilizer use and, 80–84
Prostate cancer importance of good, 74–75, 84
dairy products and, 45 livestock’s demand on, 75–76


pesticides on, 84–85 diabetes and, 25
Soil and Water Conservation Society, 162 food pyramid for, 147–48
Soil conservation, 79–80 health-care costs and, 21
Soluble fiber, 27, 47, 48. See also Dietary heart disease and, 24–30
fiber hypertension and, 25
Soybean production, 73, 79 lacto-ovo, x, xi, 24, 49, 147
Soy foods, 27, 39 low-fat, 26–27
Spina bifida, 49 studies of, 22–31
Staphylococcus, 67, 175–76 Vibrio, 47
Stroke Viruses, Norwalk-like, 60
diet and, 17–18, 23, 46 Vitamin C, 51
fruits and vegetables and, 33 Vitamin D, 43
potassium and, 50 Vitamin E, 51
Sulfuric acid, 108 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
Superfund, 159 106, 110
Tail docking, 118 Water pollution
Tohill, Beth Carlton, 35 agricultural practices and, 94–100
Tomatoes, 36 fertilizers and pesticides and, 161
Topsoil, 74–85. See also Soil from manure, 65, 96, 98–100, 158–60
Toxoplasma gondii, 176 recommendations to prevent,
Transport methods, 133–34 159–63
Tyson Foods, 70, 97
from soil erosion, 77
U.K. Farm Animal Welfare Council, 167 Water use
United Egg Producers, 121 aquifer depletion and, 89–90
University of Guelph (Ontario), 5, 7, 8 irrigation and, 76, 87–93, 95–96, 101,
Unsaturated fats, 20, 40, 50, 155 160, 161
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 82, 96, for livestock production, 88–89,
100 93–94, 101
USDA. See Department of Agriculture recommendations to reduce, 160–61
(USDA) in United States, 89
Weight loss, 35, 48
Veal production, 128
West Nile virus, 66
Vegan diet. See also Vegetarian diets
Whole grains, 37–38
animal welfare and, 147
Willett, Walter, 35
cholesterol level and, 24–26
hypertension and, 25, 26 Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
recommendations for, 147, 148 program, 153
Vegetables World Cancer Research Foundation,
dietary recommendations for, 36–37 52, 144
foodborne illness from, 64–65 World Health Organization, 33, 35, 46,
health benefits of, 31–36 48, 56–57, 69, 144
programs to increase consumption World Organization for Animal Health,
of, 153–54 135
statistics regarding consumption of, 21 World Resources Institute, 92
weight loss and, 35 Yang, Richard, 54
Vegetarian diets
cholesterol levels and, 24–25 Zahn, James, 105

$14.95 (Canada: $21) ISBN 0-89329-049-1

T his careful examination of scientific studies finds that eating more
plant foods and fewer fatty animal products can lead to extra years
of healthy living. Happily, that same diet leads to much less food
poisoning, water pollution, air pollution, and global warming. And,
because fewer cows, pigs, and chickens would need to be raised, there
would be less suffering on factory farms and in slaughterhouses.

“Six Arguments is a great description of the links between our diet and
serious environmental and health problems. I hope that readers and policy
makers will implement the book’s many recommendations.”
Walter Willett, M.D.
Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health

“While there are serious differences of opinion about issues relating to the
animal foods component of the American diet, the provocative policy
discussions in this book should be must reading for anyone interested in
the future of food and agriculture.”
Dan Glickman
former Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

“Six Arguments for a Greener Diet is a great guide to the powerful impact
that our dietary choices—especially high meat consumption—have on our
environmental footprint.”
Robert S. Lawrence, M.D.
Director, Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health

Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., is co-founder and executive director of the Center for Science in the
Public Interest (CSPI), the nonprofit health advocacy organization that publishes the world’s largest-
circulation nutrition newsletter, Nutrition Action Healthletter. CSPI advocates nutritious and safe
diets and campaigns for policies to protect the public health and environment. It led the campaigns
for laws requiring Nutrition Facts and trans-fat labeling on packaged foods, requiring health warn-
ings on alcoholic beverages, and defining “organic” foods. It publishes attention-getting studies,
including exposés of the nutritional quality of restaurant meals and movie theater popcorn. Michael
Jacobson is the author/co-author of Restaurant Confidential, Marketing Madness, What Are We
Feeding Our Kids?, and The Fast-Food Guide.

www.EatingGreen.org

Cover design by Debra Brink; book design by Nita Congress

Six arguments low

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Six arguments low (20)

More from Gioacchino dell'Aquila (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

Six arguments low