15
exaggerate and filed by out-of-state lawyers who went door to door, “actively recruiting plaintiffs and promising them large sums of money if they joined the lawsuits”. On
the other, the recognition of the right to farm has often influenced the law suit in favor
of the agrobusiness industries (Carrie Hribar 2010). Relying on this line of reasoning,
the judges, though recognizing the damages, have reduced their amount pro capita.
The tendency to prioritizes private interests rather than the well- being of communities
and the protection of the environment is evident and can be also inferred by the ambiguous role played by the EPA. The environmental and public health damages caused by
CAFOs, is also associated to some others negative socio-economic consequences.
The meat production and distribution systems are controlled by large meat processing companies whose strategy, starting from the beginning of the ‘80, was to
abandon the old-line plants in the cities and moving to rural communities. In choosing cheapest production sites, those agrobusiness multinational corporations cut
their labor costs by creating low-wage and deskilled jobs offered to minorities,
immigrants, refugees, and women, mostly coming from Mexico. Nowadays, the so
called “meatpacking communities” have become in Dakotas, Minnesota, Nebraska
and Iowa, Kansas, Northern Texas and Missouri, a new rural reality where thousands of poor people live, with few chances of getting a professional qualification
and improving their life conditions (Eastwood et al 2010). More. Tyson, Pilgrim’s,
Smithfield, SaraLee, ADM Cargill, National Beef, Conagra—just to name few of
the big agrobusiness corporations—are able to vertically control every aspect of the
meat production, from the ownership of the land to the processing of meat, its distribution, and sales. While in the ‘70 the top four beef packing companies slaughtered only the 29% of steers and heifers, today this percentage has risen to over
80%. By reducing the costs, not only are capable these scale productions to better
respond to the increasing food demand, they also enable the corporations to impose
a number of economic barriers to small producers. The difficulties in accessing to
land and to credit, the lack of competitiveness and the rising of the risk factors push
the smallholder productors down to a semi-subsistence level rate, forcing them to
drive out of the market (Welsh 1996). The CAFOs offer a good example of the
noumerous problems raised by the animal-based industries.
3 Meat Consumption and Market Strategy
Despite all these problems caused by the meat production—not least the fact that the
World Health Organization in 2015 categorized red meat as carcinogenic to humans
and a possible source of others non-transmissible diseases (obesity, diabetes)—the
meat consumption has doubled in the last 50 years, as result of the population
growth and the rising of individual income. This is particularly true for the Middleincome countries, as China or east Asia that, by the mid-past century, are experiencing a 76% increase in the consumption of poultry, a 69% increase in beef and a 42%
increase in pork. This situation is counterbalanced by a declining trend in the developed countries where a higher education level, a more conscientious attitude toward
Animal Based Industries and Climate Change
exaggerate and filed by out-of-state lawyers who went door to door, “actively recruiting plaintiffs and promising them large sums of money if they joined the lawsuits”. On
the other, the recognition of the right to farm has often influenced the law suit in favor
of the agrobusiness industries (Carrie Hribar 2010). Relying on this line of reasoning,
the judges, though recognizing the damages, have reduced their amount pro capita.
The tendency to prioritizes private interests rather than the well- being of communities
and the protection of the environment is evident and can be also inferred by the ambiguous role played by the EPA. The environmental and public health damages caused by
CAFOs, is also associated to some others negative socio-economic consequences.
The meat production and distribution systems are controlled by large meat processing companies whose strategy, starting from the beginning of the ‘80, was to
abandon the old-line plants in the cities and moving to rural communities. In choosing cheapest production sites, those agrobusiness multinational corporations cut
their labor costs by creating low-wage and deskilled jobs offered to minorities,
immigrants, refugees, and women, mostly coming from Mexico. Nowadays, the so
called “meatpacking communities” have become in Dakotas, Minnesota, Nebraska
and Iowa, Kansas, Northern Texas and Missouri, a new rural reality where thousands of poor people live, with few chances of getting a professional qualification
and improving their life conditions (Eastwood et al 2010). More. Tyson, Pilgrim’s,
Smithfield, SaraLee, ADM Cargill, National Beef, Conagra—just to name few of
the big agrobusiness corporations—are able to vertically control every aspect of the
meat production, from the ownership of the land to the processing of meat, its distribution, and sales. While in the ‘70 the top four beef packing companies slaughtered only the 29% of steers and heifers, today this percentage has risen to over
80%. By reducing the costs, not only are capable these scale productions to better
respond to the increasing food demand, they also enable the corporations to impose
a number of economic barriers to small producers. The difficulties in accessing to
land and to credit, the lack of competitiveness and the rising of the risk factors push
the smallholder productors down to a semi-subsistence level rate, forcing them to
drive out of the market (Welsh 1996). The CAFOs offer a good example of the
noumerous problems raised by the animal-based industries.
3 Meat Consumption and Market Strategy
Despite all these problems caused by the meat production—not least the fact that the
World Health Organization in 2015 categorized red meat as carcinogenic to humans
and a possible source of others non-transmissible diseases (obesity, diabetes)—the
meat consumption has doubled in the last 50 years, as result of the population
growth and the rising of individual income. This is particularly true for the Middleincome countries, as China or east Asia that, by the mid-past century, are experiencing a 76% increase in the consumption of poultry, a 69% increase in beef and a 42%
increase in pork. This situation is counterbalanced by a declining trend in the developed countries where a higher education level, a more conscientious attitude toward
Animal Based Industries and Climate Change