The Missouri Pork Producers Association, the Poultry Federation and other advocates for agribusiness have labeled those concerned about concentrated animal feeding operation as “anti-CAFO”.

The implication is that the many, many organizations (including the Pew Commission, Johns Hopkins Medical Center and the American Public Health Association) finding fault with CAFOs are just knee-jerk opposed to non-traditional agricultural practices.

An additional charge is that environmental, humane and conservation groups are opposed to CAFOs in order to increase membership.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Pew, Johns Hopkins and the public health folks are primarily focused on diseases coming from CAFOs via air emissions. Another concern is the amount of antibiotics given to animals in CAFOs, increasing the resistance to certain bacteria. Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Areus or MRSA is usually cited as one example. Until recently, the primary antibiotic for fending off anthrax was routinely fed to chickens.

However, while environmental and conservation organizations are concerned about human health, it is the pollution of air and water that is the main focus.

There is little doubt that CAFOs pollute and are unhealthy. Study after study documents that — a quick search of “CAFOs and health” or “CAFOs and pollution” will turn up hundreds of such peer-reviewed research reports. At one time, all Class 1A CAFOs (the biggest of the big) were in violation of their permit conditions and some were under court orders to make corrections. Only agribusiness owners of the animals in CAFOs and their supporters (Farm Bureau, Missouri Pork Producers, Poultry Federation, Mid-America Dairymen, Cattlemen’s Beef Association, etc.) assert that CAFOs provide a positive benefit to the air and water, the rural economy and animal welfare.

As to increasing the number of members (and, not coincidentally, funding) of environmental, animal welfare and conservation groups, those who assert this don’t really understand the finances of not-for-profit entities. Most of the operating money comes from private (not public) grants and at present very few, maybe no foundations are funding anti-CAFO campaigns. No doubt, a few members do join due to positions on sustainable farming, but those members don’t bring in much money nor do they swell the membership rolls.

The truth is that public health organizations oppose CAFOs because of the bacteria-resistant problems and the threats to human health. Environmental and conservation organizations oppose CAFOs because of ongoing pollution problems. Family farm organizations oppose CAFOs because of the economic threats posed by industrial agribusinesses.

Finally, the Humane Society of the United States is primarily interested in animal welfare (NOT animal “rights”). It is not, it claims, humane to house thousands of hogs, chickens and dairy cows in small quarters nor is it humane to place formerly pastured cattle into feedlots where they stand in their own manure.

The nonsense coming from public relations departments at Tyson, Smithfield, Cargill and other agribusiness CAFO advocates is just that.

Ken Midkiff is a member of the Sierra Club.