Iowa Science Panel Recommends Moratorium

The risks are of CAFO’s are not fully understood and merit further study, CAFO density in a given watershed should be constrained, and local governmental bodies should have a role in controlling CAFO growth. These are some of the conclusions of a panel of scientist released last month in the Environmental Health Perspectives: Reports Detail Environmental Health Challenges Associated With Intensive Livestock.

The Ag Observatory reports on the group’s findings as follows:

“Although sufficient research exists to support action to protect rural residents from the negative community health impacts of (confinements), additional research could be conducted to further delineate mechanisms of effects and impacts on susceptible subgroups,” said one of six reports from work groups. The scientists, assembled in Iowa City in March 2004 and now reporting peer-reviewed results, were financed by the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health.

 Link. The Pork industry was quick to respond:

Eldon McAfee, lawyer for the Iowa Pork Producers Association, said there is no scientific backing for the working group claim of clear health effects from confinement emissions. There also isn’t, in the association’s opinion, scientific backing for a moratorium. McAfee said his group opposes local control because it would be an unnecessary disruption to a keystone industry, and considers existing laws good protection against pollution.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 4th, 2006 at 6:27 pm and is filed under CAFO. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.