August 09, 2008 09:43 pm
—
Several state governors — including our own — promote concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as a rural economic development tool. But are they?
I set out to find an answer to a simple question. That simple question is: Are CAFOs economically beneficial?
The answer, I learned, is equally simple: No.
Realizing that I am entering an area that has traditionally been the stomping grounds of rural economists, I relied heavily on the studies of Bill Weida of Colorado College and John Ikerd of the University of Missouri. Both are rural economists and both are retired. Retirement has certain benefits. For one thing, it frees retirees from the dictates of the hierarchy at whatever institution employed them. The second benefit is that the retiree is freed up to work on the issues deemed important.
Both Weida and Ikerd have studied rural development and both have concluded that CAFOs do more harm than good to the rural economy.
For indicators, they cite:
n The increase in rural crime (burglaries, driveby shootings, drug deals).
n The decrease in property values on lands near CAFOs.
n The necessity (and increased cost) for local school districts to teach English as a Second Language.
n The necessity for local “C-Stores” to hire bilingual clerks.
n The closure of local retail outlets.
n That local banks and savings and loan institutions are purchased by larger entities or close altogether.
n That independent farmers go out of hog-rearing, dairy or chicken operations (and this has a “domino” effect).
n The amount of direct and indirect subsidies to CAFOs.
n The few local workers hired by CAFOs.
n The growing numbers of documented and undocumented immigrants as the work force.
n The burden on the local community to provide social services for a foreign population.
Any one of these indicators would be problematic, but when all of them are added together, it becomes readily apparent that CAFOs are an economic disaster for rural communities.
No doubt, a few on the boards of Tysons, Smithfield, and Seaboard benefit. No doubt, that CEOs of ConAgra and Cargill do well. But the folks on corporate agribusiness boards and the CEOs don’t live in rural communities. Indeed, Joe Luter, the CEO of Smithfield — a self-described “family farmer” — lives in a condo on Park Avenue in New York City.
So, while a few of the already-rich get richer, rural communities get poorer. While a few bigwigs vacation for months in Bermuda or a tropical island in the Pacific, rural residents can hardly afford to take a vacation at all.
Economic benefit? No. Economic development? No.
If this is, as some say, “the future of agriculture,” rural residents had better hang onto their pocketbooks and hope that the invasion of the CAFOs goes away.
So what are the governors thinking in promoting CAFOs as a way to benefit rural communities? While my first impulse is to state “They aren’t thinking,” the adage of “follow the money” applies. Take a look at which business organizations bankroll gubernatorial campaigns. Take a look at the donations flowing in from advocacy groups such as the Farm Bureau, the Pork Producers Association, the Poultry Federation, or the American Dairy Federation.
Who are the governors listening to? Those with the most money for them.
Ken Midkiff is a spokesman for the Sierra Club.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.