Hopkins study challenges food regulation agencies

Agricultural regulatory agencies, the governmental organizations that oversee food production and research, are regulated themselves by the red tape of bureaucracy. A study from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) discovered that, under current circumstances, industrial food animal production (IFAP) regulatory agencies are not able to do their jobs effectively.

IFAP, known colloquially as factory farming, is a modern farming scheme adopted by many developed nations to cope with rising populations and high food demands. In this modern system, livestock is industrially produced in small, confined areas at a very high density. IFAP methods allow farmers to produce milk, meat and eggs at very high levels of output and relatively low costs. Such efficiency has proven beneficial, if not crucial, for the world’s rapidly growing population.

Amid these benefits, however, IFAP is associated with many negative consequences for human health. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified many occupational health issues for factory farm workers, ranging from lung diseases to infections.

Furthermore, a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Health Research and Public Health revealed that residents of communities next to factory farms experience an increase in respiratory diseases, neurobehavioral disorders and mental illnesses due to the farm’s pollution.

Intrigued by this information, Hopkins researchers at the CLF conducted interviews with employees from regulatory agencies in seven states with high levels of IFAP operations. The interviews probed the amount of complaints and public health concerns received by the agencies, the method in which the agencies responded to such concerns and the efficiency of process used to resolve the issues.

The Hopkins team found that state agencies legally allowed to regulate IFAP operations were unable to address public health concerns. This worrisome inability was attributed to narrow regulations, a dearth of proficient public health workers and inadequate resources.

However, the results of the CLF study do not imply that every state in the U.S. has trouble managing its IFAP operations. The state of Maryland, known for its chicken production, has been a leader in environmental protection. In fact, the Maryland Department of Agriculture just adopted a set of new regulations in 2012 that will improve the old nutrient regulations on chicken manure.

Chicken manure, used as a fertilizer, can be very harmful to the environment and human health if stored or applied to crops improperly. The new regulations will closely monitor chicken manure storage and application, and it is thought that this vigilance will protect and improve human health.

Following Maryland’s lead, state governments can certainly improve the quality of their IFAP operations and public health by taking the first step and simply exerting the effort to update outdated regulations. Hopefully, other local and state governments will take notice of the negative consequences of IFAP and change current regulations to streamline the regulatory process and protect the public’s health.