MAY 4, 2020
PROGRESSIVE
OPINION AND NEWS
THE USE OF WORDS
IN PARAGRAPHS THREE AND FOUR SOUNDS FUNNY TO ME, THOUGH IT IS BITTER HUMOR.
KHANNA SAYS THAT THE NEW ACT WOULD GIVE THE PRESIDENT SIGNIFICANT MONEY
SO THAT HE CAN PRODUCE THE NEW SUPPLIES. THE MONEY ISN’T HIS AND HE WON’T
PRODUCE ANYTHING, BUT PERHAPS KHANNA HAS NOTICED THAT TRUMP DOES TAKE PERSONAL
CREDIT FOR EVERYTHING OF A POSITIVE NATURE THAT HAPPENS. IF HE DOESN’T LIKE IT,
OF COURSE, HE BLAMES IT ON NANCY PELOSI. BUILT INTO THE BILL ARE SOME STRICTURES MEANT TO PREVENT ANYONE IN HIGH OFFICE, INCLUDING THE TRUMP FAMILY, FROM GETTING ANY PERSONAL ENRICHMENT FROM THE FUNDS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF "TEETH" IT HAS IN IT TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE.
Bernie Sanders
and Ro Khanna introduce legislation to bolster production of PPE
BY GRACE SEGERS
MAY 4, 2020 /
2:45 PM / CBS NEWS
VIDEO – FDA
authorizes emergency use of new antibody test, CBS evening news with Nora O’Donnell
Two of the most
progressive members of Congress are introducing legislation on Monday to
mobilize the federal government to purchase or manufacture more personal
protective equipment (PPE), as lawmakers ponder next steps in responding to
the continued fallout of the coronavirus pandemic.
Senator Bernie
Sanders and Congressman Ro Khanna are unveiling the Emergency Medical
Supplies Procurement Act, which would provide an additional $75 billion
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The money would allow the Trump
administration to manufacture or purchase PPE such as hospital gowns and masks,
ventilators, testing reagents and compounds, approved medication treatments,
and any other necessary medical supplies or hospital infrastructure.
"It's
incomprehensible to most Americans why our country can't produce masks, why we
can't produce swabs," Khanna said in an interview with CBS News, referring
to the shortfall in PPE in hospitals across the country. "The greatest
economy in the world should be able to produce these things."
Khanna, who is
a member of the White House's bipartisan legislative task force to reopen the
government, said he was able to speak to Vice President Mike Pence and
President Trump about his ideas. He said this bill was not partisan, but an act
of "good faith" that provides the president with significant
funds.
"If the
president has $75 billion, he can easily produce the masks and the
gloves and the sanitizers that are necessary to keep people safe," Khanna
said.
Mr. Trump has
sparred with some governors, claiming some states have requested more PPE and
ventilators than they need. The legislation proposed by Sanders and Khanna
would require the president to respond to state requests for health care requests
as quickly as possible, using authorities provided by the Defense Production
Act (DPA), National Emergencies Act, and Stafford Act.
Khanna said
this legislation would "alleviate the pressure on states." He pointed
to California Governor Gavin Newsom negotiating a $1 billion deal to
purchase masks from China.
The DPA allows
the president to compel corporations to produce items needed to aid the
country's response to the pandemic. Congress already allocated $1 billion to
the DPA in previous coronavirus relief legislation, but Sanders and Khanna
argue this is not enough to compensate for supply shortages.
"It is
unacceptable that the President still has not utilized the Defense
Production Act to aggressively demand that the private sector manufacture the
equipment and products that our medical personnel, patients, and frontline
workers desperately need," Sanders told CBS News.
Sanders
expressed frustration that the U.S. is testing fewer than 200,000 people per
day, as well as shortfalls in PPE and ventilators across the country.
"Trump's
inaction is literally sacrificing the lives of medical professionals and
patients throughout this country. Since
Trump has failed to act, Congress has got to step in to address this
crisis," Sanders said.
The text of the
legislation says the president "shall fulfill, to the greatest
extent possible and with due urgency, according to need, all requests from
states for critical health care resources that are required to support
medical providers, treat patients, or promote the general well-being in
response to, or to recover from, the outbreak of COVID–19."
The legislation
also seeks to prevent Mr. Trump's family or members of his administration
from personally benefiting from this funding by including oversight and
accountability provisions. The text of the legislation says no funds will be
made available to "any person who is a Federal elected official or serving
in a Senior Executive Service position," or to "any entity that is
controlled in whole or in part by a Federal elected official or serving in a
Senior Executive Service position."
The bill also requires
the secretary of Health and Human Services and the administrator of the FEMA to
submit a weekly report on the requests by states and the implementation of
resources to state and local governments.
"The
United States is the richest country in the world. There is no excuse for our
medical professionals and essential workers not to have the masks, gloves,
gowns and tests they need to keep safe, treat their patients and stop the
spread of this deadly pandemic," Sanders said. "States and cities
should not be forced to bid against each other for scarce and overpriced
medical equipment."
It is unclear
when the next round of coronavirus relief legislation will be negotiated and
finalized. The Senate is returning to the Capitol on Monday, but the House
is not. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced last week that the Capitol
attending physician — who advises both houses of Congress — warned it was not
safe for lawmakers to return to Washington amid the pandemic.
Senate
Democrats have raised concerns about returning to the Capitol, particularly
since many senators are above the age of 65, which is a high-risk demographic
for contracting the coronavirus. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell has argued members of Congress should be considered essential workers
and conduct their business at the Capitol.
First published
on May 4, 2020 / 6:01 AM
© 2020 CBS
Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Grace Segers
grace-headshot.jpg
Grace Segers is
a politics reporter for CBS News Digital.
SAME STORY,
DIFFERENT SOURCE – COMMON DREAMS
Published on
Monday, May 04,
2020
byCommon Dreams
To Counter
Trump Inaction, Sanders-Khanna Bill Would Unleash $75 Billion for Emergency
Manufacture of PPE, Covid-19 Testing
"It's been
three months, but somehow the Trump administration continues to drag its feet
in ramping up the production of critical testing and protective equipment that
our health care providers are begging for."
byJulia Conley,
staff writer
PHOTOGRAPH -- U.S.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced
legislation Monday to fund the purchase and manufacturing of medical equipment,
as healthcare providers continue to report shortages while they fight the
Covid-19 pandemic. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Sen. Bernie
Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna on Monday introduced legislation to ensure
healthcare providers have enough medical equipment and Covid-19 tests, demanding
that the federal government dramatically step up its response to the
coronavirus pandemic rather than focusing on getting people back to work as
soon as possible.
The Emergency
Medical Supplies Procurement Act would dedicate $75 billion to the
effort, allowing the government to purchase or manufacture supplies including
N-95 respirators, surgical gowns, ventilators, testing kits, and other
badly-needed medical equipment as well as vaccines and treatments for Covid-19.
The progressive
lawmakers introduced the legislation three days after President Donald Trump
moved to fire Health and Human Services deputy inspector general Christi Grimm
over her report last month about supply shortages at hundreds of medical
centers across the country.
"The
United States is the richest country in the world. There is no excuse for our
medical professionals and essential workers not to have the masks, gloves,
gowns and tests they need to keep safe, treat their patients and stop the
spread of this deadly pandemic," said Sanders.
Bernie Sanders
✔
@SenSanders
There is no
excuse for medical workers in the richest country on Earth to lack masks,
gloves, gowns and tests.
If Trump won't
act, Congress must. @RepRoKhanna and I are introducing legislation to rapidly
manufacture all the medical equipment we need: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/bernie-sanders-to-khanna-ppe-production-legislation/
…
EMBEDDED PHOTOGRAPH
– BERNIE SANDERS
Bernie Sanders
and Ro Khanna introduce legislation to bolster production of PPE
The act would
provide an additional $75 billion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
cbsnews.com
5,971
11:03 AM - May
4, 2020
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
1,514 people
are talking about this
According to
Sanders and Khanna, the U.S. currently is testing between 100,000 and 200,000
people per day for the coronavirus—while public health experts recommend
testing 500,000 to one million people per day before the country considers
ending social distancing orders which have forced millions to stay mainly at
home for more than a month.
Despite
warnings from public health officials, more than half of U.S. states
partially reopened their economies in recent days—even as the country saw
its highest single-day death toll from Covid-19.
In order to
produce the number of tests needed to track the outbreak and the equipment
needed to protect healthcare providers and save patients' lives, Khanna and
Sanders said, the federal government must be compelled to invoke the Defense
Production Act specifically for that purpose.
"Congress
must explicitly authorize that the Defense Production Act (DPA) is fully
utilized to demand that the private sector manufacture the equipment and
products that our medical personnel, patients, and frontline workers
desperately need," said Sanders.
The U.S.
Congress authorized $1 billion for the production of protective equipment
and other hospital necessities—a figure which "pales in comparison to
the amount of supplies needed to protect frontline healthcare workers and
increase testing capacity," said Khanna and Sanders in a statement.
"It's been
three months, but somehow the Trump administration continues to drag its feet
in ramping up the production of critical testing and protective equipment that
our health care providers are begging for," said Khanna. "Testing
is the key to safely restarting our economy and this bill provides the federal
government with the resources and directives that will get us where we need to
be."
Trump has
invoked the DPA only to direct specific companies to manufacture PPE and
ventilators, and last week he used the law to compel meat processing plants to
stay open during the pandemic, putting thousands of workers at risk in
workplaces where social distancing is difficult if not impossible.
Under the
Emergency Medical Supplies Procurement Act, the administration would be
required to respond promptly requests from states in need of healthcare
supplies. With states relying on the Strategic National Stockpile for
equipment—and then going directly to manufacturers as that supply
dwindled—state governments have been forced into a bidding war over desperately-needed
products.
"States
and cities should not be forced to bid against each other for scarce and
overpriced medical equipment," said Sanders.
The legislation
would also include strict oversight and accountability provisions to avoid the
misuse of the funding, after other federal programs responding to the pandemic,
including the Paycheck Protection Program, were beset with the misappropriation
of funds.
Rep. Ro Khanna
✔
@RepRoKhanna
Replying to
@RepRoKhanna
We’re also
including safeguards to ensure no member of the Trump family or administration
gets a dime of recovery funding, and we’re requiring weekly oversight reports to
ensure the taxpayer’s money is actually being used to mobilize the mass
production of PPE.
66
11:21 AM - May
4, 2020
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
27 people are
talking about this
"We're
also including safeguards to ensure no member of the Trump family or
administration gets a dime of recovery funding," tweeted Khanna, two
weeks after the president's business, the Trump Organization, sought rent
relief due to the pandemic.
Our work is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel
free to republish and share widely.
Our pandemic
coverage is free to all. As is all of our reporting.
TRUMP IS MAKING
ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO PUSH FORWARD A CUT TO THE PAYROLL TAX BASE THAT FUNDS SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICARE. THE OLD IS NEW AGAIN.
Published on
Monday, May 04,
2020
byCommon Dreams
Trump Says He
Won't Approve Covid-19 Package Without Tax Cut That Offers Zero Relief for
30 Million Newly Unemployed
"'Payroll
tax cut' is code for 'gut Social Security and Medicare's dedicated funding,
then demand benefit cuts.' Democrats must stand strong and continue blocking Trump's
terrible idea."
byJake Johnson,
staff writer
PHOTOGRAPH -- President
Donald Trump speaks with Fox News anchor Bret Baier during a town hall inside
of the Lincoln Memorial on May 3, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Oliver
Contreras-Pool/Getty Images)
President Donald
Trump on Sunday said he will not approve another badly needed Covid-19 stimulus
package if it doesn't include a payroll tax cut, a policy that would strike a
blow to Social Security and Medicare funding while offering no relief for the
more than 30 million people who have lost their jobs over the past six weeks.
"I told
Steve just today, we're not doing anything unless we get a payroll tax cut,"
Trump said during a Fox News town hall Sunday night, referring to Treasury
Secretary Steve Mnuchin. "That is so important to the success of our
country."
The town hall
was the second time in less than a week that the president has proposed a
payroll tax cut as a centerpiece of the next relief legislation, which is being
negotiated by the White House and congressional leaders as the U.S. barrels
toward an unemployment rate not seen since the Great Depression.
An NPR/PBS
Newshour/Marist survey released last week found that half of all Americans said
they or someone in their household has lost a job or seen their hours slashed
due to the coronavirus pandemic.
VIDEO – America
Together: Returning To Work Town Hall
Economists have
noted that a payroll tax cut—unlike additional direct payments, which Trump has
opposed—would do nothing for those who have been thrown out of work by the
coronavirus crisis.
University of
Michigan economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers wrote in a New York
Times op-ed in March that a payroll tax cut would give "the biggest breaks
to those with the biggest paychecks, and delivers nothing to those who have
lost their pay."
"And it's
a slow infusion of cash," Stevenson and Wolfers added, "dripping out
paycheck by paycheck."
Additionally,
advocacy groups have warned that a payroll tax cut represents a threat to
Social Security and Medicare.
"'Payroll
tax cut' is code for 'gut Social Security and Medicare's dedicated funding, then demand
benefit cuts,'" Social Security Works tweeted Sunday night.
"Democrats must stand strong and continue blocking Trump's terrible
idea."
Trump's
comments came in the early stages of talks over a "Phase Four" coronavirus
stimulus package that advocates and experts say is urgently needed to stem mass
layoffs, forestall a looming nationwide housing crisis, and avert a second
Great Depression.
On top of a
payroll tax cut, Republican congressional leaders and the Trump White House are
demanding that any future stimulus measure include legal immunity for
corporations whose workers contract Covid-19 on the job.
Jeffrey Stein
✔
@JStein_WaPo
As far as I can
tell, Rs now have 2 redline demands — payroll tax cut and liability shield
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1257104868738830337 …
Seung Min Kim
✔
@seungminkim
This seems like
news - Trump lays down new marker in next phase of virus legislation:
"We’re not doing anything unless we get a payroll tax cut." Said he
talked to Mnuchin about this earlier today.
19
8:31 PM - May
3, 2020
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
16 people are
talking about this
Progressives,
meanwhile, are calling for a relief package that addresses the needs of
frontline workers, distributes direct $2,000 monthly payments to all U.S.
households, provides emergency funding for the U.S. Postal Service, expands
Medicare to cover the unemployed and uninsured, cancels rent and mortgage
payments, and more.
Indivisible, a progressive
advocacy organization, is pressuring members of Congress to vote against any
stimulus bill that doesn't provide sufficient relief to the vulnerable.
"If the
bill doesn't put people first, they should vote no," the group tweeted
Saturday.
Our work is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel
free to republish and share widely.
Our pandemic
coverage is free to all. As is all of our reporting.
INDIVISIBLE ASKS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: PLEDGE TO
OPPOSE COVID 4 UNLESS IT (FINALLY) FOCUSES ON PEOPLE
04/23/2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 23, 2020
Contact: Emily Phelps | press@indivisible.org
Washington, DC
— On Wednesday night, Indivisible and a host of major progressive organizations
sent a letter to the offices of congressional Democrats, calling on individual
offices to pledge that they will vote no on the next COVID package unless it
prioritizes the People's Agenda principles.
From the
letter:
“We call on all
progressive House members to make clear now that you will oppose any bill in
the next round that does not put the majority of focus on the People’s agenda
that Americans desperately need and expect from our elected leaders.
To achieve
this, we believe it's critical that the House go first and pass a Democratic
bill early in the next round to set the terms of debate, maximize leverage, and
honor all the voters who turned out in 2018 to elect a Democratic House.”
Indivisible has
opposed the current package before the House, known as COVID 3.5. This letter
encourages Members of Congress to take this pledge on the contents of COVID 4,
regardless of how they ultimately vote on 3.5.
Full text of
the letter can be found below.
# # #
ABOUT THE
INDIVISIBLE PROJECT
The Indivisible
Project is a registered 501(c)(4) nonprofit. Our mission is to cultivate and
lift up a grassroots movement of local groups to defeat the Trump agenda,
elect progressive leaders, and realize bold progressive policies. Across
the nation, thousands of local groups are using the Indivisible Guide to
hold their members of Congress accountable.
TEXT OF LETTER
April 22, 2020
Dear House
Democrats,
We know you are
working hard, want the best for your constituents, and are operating in an
environment with asymmetric information. We know that this bill has been
negotiated behind closed doors. And, like the last round of coronavirus relief,
you likely are torn when thinking about your public stance on the bill before
you.
This bill is
more of a win for Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump than the American people.
Once again, those who need help the most, including communities of color and
immigrants who have been hit very hard by this crisis, are told to wait and
Democrats are unnecessarily giving away leverage that people depend on you to
use in order to save lives. Below is our rationale, but first a request
regardless of how you vote.
We call on all
progressive House members to make clear now that you will oppose any bill in
the next round that does not put the majority of focus on the People’s agenda
that Americans desperately need and expect from our elected leaders.
To achieve
this, we believe it's critical that the House go first and pass a Democratic
bill early in the next round to set the terms of debate, maximize leverage, and
honor all the voters who turned out in 2018 to elect a Democratic House.
This country is
facing an unprecedented crisis. Our communities need Congress — and the Democrats
who control the House — to fight for the People’s Agenda. Put simply, it calls
to:
1. Keep people
on payrolls: Stop mass layoffs and preserve employment relationships for all
businesses, including small businesses. Ensure federal dollars go to workers
and small businesses, not enriching CEOs and Wall Street.
2. Provide
financial relief: Expand aid for the most vulnerable, including direct cash
assistance, increased food aid, debt relief, and eviction protections.
3. Protect
public health: Full health coverage for all COVID-19 care and protections for
all frontline workers.
4. Defend
elections: Enact a vote-by-mail requirement for 2020 federal elections while
maintaining access to in-person voting for those who do not have access to mail
voting.
Democrats must
ensure the next package provides relief to every person in this country,
regardless of tax or immigration status, age or disability.
We absolutely
want to support small businesses to make sure they can weather this disaster
and keep their workers paid. But the small business loan program under
Donald Trump and Steve Mnuchin is sending millions to Ruth’s Chris Steak
House while providing too little for many real small businesses around the
country. And if we don't provide support for families -- and for local
governments who will soon begin furloughing workers -- the small businesses
that have managed to stay open will continue to shed customers.
Here’s what we
see when we review this bill:
No money to
secure our elections
No protections
or support for front line workers
No inclusion of
immigrants
No sufficient
measures to address racial disparities
No additional
economic support for workers and families
No additional
money for states and local governments
No money for
the USPS
Nothing to make
sure companies maintain payroll
No cancellation
of rent or mortgage payments
No student debt
relief or expansion of Social Security benefits during this crisis
No new strings
attached to money given to big corporations
Just as
importantly as the inadequate policy provisions, this bill gives away
Democratic leverage. What Republicans want most is more money for their
corporate donors, which means now Democrats have less leverage for a future
package. Mitch McConnell has already said he doesn't want to push through
another bill, and if he does, it won't be for weeks.
We fought so
hard to win back the House in 2018 — to make sure that we had a voice in
negotiations like this. So far we've not seen the House enough of a
collective push-back on negotiations for the agenda we really need.
The Senate has
had its say on this round and it’s a bad deal for American communities. The
people’s House should now use its power to make it better rather than rubber
stamping Trump and McConnell’s failed agenda.
We need better
covid relief that prioritizes everyone. Regardless of how you vote on this
bill, we call on you to make clear now that you call on the House to pass a
Democratic bill and that you will vote no on COVID 4 if it doesn't center on a
People’s Agenda.
Thank you.
Indivisible
Social Security Works
United We Dream
Ultraviolet
Friends of the Earth
Women’s March
Demand Progress
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action
Center for Popular Democracy
Mijente
Demos
Color Of Change
Black to the Future Action Fund
People’s Action
Working Families Party
Democracy for America
Progressive Change Campaign
Committee
NextGen America
Community Change Action
Justice Democrats
NextGen America
Jobs With Justice
IN LISTENING TO
THE FOLLOWING “USEFUL IDIOTS” PODCAST I CAME ACROSS ANOTHER NEW TERM: “CAFO.”
IT DESCRIBES THE MASSIVE “FARM” ARRANGEMENTS BEHIND THE EQUALLY MASSIVE
SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND THE MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY, OR “FACTORY FARMING.” THIS
SUBJECT IS LINKED WITH THE RECENT NEWS ARTICLES ON MEAT PACKING PLANTS, IN
WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN INCREASED TRANSMISSIONS OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS, SIMILAR TO
THAT IN NURSING HOMES. PEOPLE, AND NOT JUST ANIMALS, ARE BEING FORCED TO STAND
CLOSELY TOGETHER TO AN UNHEALTHFUL DEGREE – THE SORT OF ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH
DISEASE MULTIPLIES MOST RAPIDLY.
SO, WHAT IS A CAFO?
IT’S A “CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION.” IT INVOLVES DISGUSTING AND
CRUEL LIVING QUARTERS FOR ANIMALS, DESIGNED TO RAISE THEM TO MAXIMUM SIZE AND
AGE FOR KILLING. READ THE NIH ARTICLE BELOW ON THE SUBJECT, THOUGH THE GIST OF
THE STUDY IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT. THIS ARTICLE INTRODUCES MORE LIGHT
ON THE SHADOWY BUSINESS OF “FACTORY FARMING,” AND ITS’ EFFECT ON THE HUMAN AND
FINANCIAL ECONOMY OF THE COMMUNITY AROUND THESE “FARMS.” IT’S ANOTHER CASE OF “TRICKLE
UP.” THIS ARTICLE IS OLD, BUT THAT PROBABLY JUST MEANS THAT THE STATISCAL AND
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION SHOWS A SITUATION THAT IS EVEN MORE DIRE NOW, RATHER THAN
BEING VASTLY IMPROVED. I’M SORRY IF THAT SOUNDS CYNICAL.
Vol. 115, No.
2ResearchOpen Access
Community
Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations
Kelley J.
Donham, Steven Wing, David Osterberg, Jan L. Flora, Carol Hodne, Kendall M.
Thu, and Peter S. Thorne
Published:1
February 2007 https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8836Cited
by:58
“The rural and
agricultural community has changed dramatically over the past half century. The
trends include an overall reduction in the number of farms, an increase in size
of the farms, and economic concentration in the industries that supply inputs
and purchase commodities from farms. .... The number of hog producers in the
United States was more than 1 million in the 1960s but fell to about 67,000 by
2005 [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2005]. Although the total inventory
of hogs has changed little over the years, the structural shift toward
concentration has been dramatic with the 110 largest hog operations in the
country, each of which has over 50,000 hogs, now constituting 55% of the
total national inventory (USDA 2005).
“.... It is clear
that at least 25% of confinement workers suffer from respiratory diseases
including bronchitis, mucus membrane irritation, asthmalike syndrome, and acute
respiratory distress syndrome. Recent findings substantiate anecdotal
observations that a small proportion of workers experience acute respiratory
symptoms early in their work history that may be sufficiently severe to cause
immediate withdrawal from the work place (Dosman et. al. 2004). An additional
acute respiratory condition, organic dust toxic syndrome, related to high
concentrations of bioaerosols in livestock buildings occurs episodically in
more than 30% of swine workers.”
Environmental
assessments of air quality inside livestock buildings reveal unhealthful
concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, inhalable particulate matter, and
endotoxin (Iowa State University and University of Iowa 2002; Schenker et al.
1998). While there is less information on adverse effects among residents
living in the vicinity of swine operations, that body of literature has
been growing in recent years (Avery et al. 2004; Bullers 2005; Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention 1998; Kilburn 1997; Merchant et al. 2005;
Mirabelli et al. 2006a; Reynolds et al. 1997; Schiffman et al. 1995, 2000; Thu
2002; Thu et al. 1997; Wing and Wolf 2000).
Thu et al.
(1997) documented excessive respiratory symptoms in neighbors of
large-scale CAFOs, relative to comparison populations in low-density
livestock-producing areas. The pattern of these symptoms was similar to
those experienced by CAFO workers. Wing and Wolf (2000) and Bullers (2005)
found similar differences in North Carolina. A case report associated with
hydrogen sulfide exposure from a livestock processing facility in South
Sioux City, Nebraska, revealed excessive diagnoses of respiratory and digestive
disturbances in people living nearby (Campagna et al. 2004). Schiffman and
colleagues reported that neighbors of confinement facilities experienced
increased levels of mood disorders including anxiety, depression, and sleep
disturbances attributable to exposures to malodorous compounds (Schiffman
et al. 1995, 2000). Avery et al. (2004) found lower concentration and
secretion of salivary immunoglobulin A among swine CAFO neighbors during times
of moderate to high odor compared with times of low or no odor, suggesting a
stress-mediated physiologic response to malodor (Shusterman 1992).
Community
environmental air quality assessments have shown concentrations of hydrogen
sulfide and ammonia that exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry recommendations (Reynolds
et al. 1997). A recent study revealed that children living on farms raising
swine have an increased risk for asthma, with increasing prevalence of asthma
outcomes associated with the increased size of the swine operation (Merchant
et. al. 2005). Children in North Carolina attending middle schools within 3
miles of one or more swine CAFOs and children attending schools where school
staff report CAFO odors in school buildings were found to have a higher
prevalence of wheezing compared with other middle school children (Mirabelli et
al. 2006a, 2006b). It should be noted that these studies (although controlled)
lack contemporaneous exposure assessment and health outcomes ascertainment.
Additional research to include environmental exposure data related to
biomarkers of response is needed.
Mental health
Living in
proximity to large-scale CAFOs has been linked to symptoms of impaired mental
health, as assessed by epidemiologic measures. Greater self-reported depression
and anxiety were found among North Carolina residents living near CAFOs
(Bullers 2005; Schiffman et al. 1995). This finding was not corroborated in a
small study by Thu et al. (1997) of depression among people living near to or
far from CAFOs. However, it should be noted that the study of Thu et al.
differed in that residents were not asked to report on their mental state
during an actual odor episode as was the case in the study by Schiffman et al.
(1995).
Greater CAFO-related
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cognitions have been reported among Iowans
living in an area of CAFO concentration compared with Iowans living in an area
of a low concentration of livestock production (Hodne CJ, unpublished data).
PTSD cognitions were consistent with interviewees’ multiple concerns about the
decline in the quality of life and socioeconomic vitality caused by CAFOs, in
areas of CAFO concentration with declining traditional family farm production.
Social health
One of the most
significant social impacts of CAFOs is the disruption of quality of life for
neighboring residents. More than an unpleasant odor, the smell can have
dramatic consequences for rural communities where lives are rooted in enjoying
the outdoors (Thu 2002). The encroachment of a large-scale livestock facility
near homes is significantly disruptive of rural living. The highly cherished
values of freedom and independence associated with life oriented toward the
outdoors gives way to feelings of violation and infringement. Social gatherings
when family and friends come together are affected either in practice or
through disruption of routines that normally provide a sense of belonging and
identity—backyard barbecues and visits by friends and family. Homes are no
longer an extension of or a means for enjoying the outdoors. Rather, homes
become a barrier against the outdoors that must be escaped.
Studies
evaluating the impacts of CAFOs on communities suggest that CAFOs generally
attract controversy and often threaten community social capital (Kleiner AM,
Rikoon JS, Seipel M, unpublished data; 2000; Ryan VD, Terry Al, Besser TL,
unpublished data; Thu 1996). The rifts that develop among community members can
be deep and long-standing (DeLind 1998). Wright et al. (2001), in an in-depth
six-county study in southern Minnesota, identified three patterns that reflect
the decline of social capital that resulted from the siting of CAFOs in all six
rural communities they studied: a) widening gaps between CAFO and non-CAFO
producers; b) harassment of vocal opponents of CAFOs; and c) perceptions by
both CAFO supporters and CAFO opponents of hostility, neglect, or inattention
by public institutions that resulted in perpetuation of an adversarial and
inequitable community climate. Threats to CAFO neighbors have also been
reported in North Carolina (Wing 2002). Clearly, community conflict often
follows the siting of a CAFO in a community. What is not known is if community
conflict resulting from the siting or presence of CAFOs has an impact on the
ability of communities to act on other issues.
Environmental
injustice
Disproportionate
location of CAFOs in areas populated by people of color or people with low
incomes is a form of environmental injustice that can have negative impacts on
community health (Wing et al. 2000). Several studies have shown that a
disproportionate number of swine CAFOs are located in low-income and nonwhite
areas (Ladd and Edwards 2002; Wilson et al. 2002; Wing et al. 2000) and near
low-income and nonwhite schools (Mirabelli et al. 2006a, 2006b). These
facilities and the hazardous agents associated with them are generally unwanted
in local communities and are often thrust upon those sectors with the lowest
levels of political influence. CAFOs are locally unwanted because of their
emissions of malodor, nutrients, and toxicants that negatively affect community
health and quality of life. Low-income communities and populations that
experience institutional discrimination based on race have higher susceptibilities
to CAFO impacts due to poor housing, low income, poor health status, and lack
of access to medical care.
Failure of the
political process
In 2005 the
U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report on the effectiveness of
U.S. EPA efforts in meeting its obligations to regulate concentrated animal
feeding operations (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2005). The report
identified two major flaws: a) allowing an estimated 60% of animal feeding
operations in the United States to go unregulated, and b) lack of federal
oversight of state governments to ensure they are adequately implementing
required federal regulations for CAFOs. Additionally, many states have not
taken a proactive stance to comply with the U.S. EPA regulations. Therefore, the
concentration of livestock production, most noted by CAFO-style production, has
continued to expand in most states. This has resulted in many rural communities
and individuals taking action on their own, through local ordinances or
litigation, as they have not been able to find access through usual
governmental channels.
Several studies
have found that property values decrease when CAFOs move into a community
(Abeles-Allison and Conner 1990; Hamed et. al. 1999; Herriges et al. 2003;
Palmquist et al. 1997). Neighbors of CAFOs are interested in preventing loss of
property value, loss of their homes and land, forced changes in their life
style, adverse changes in their communities, and threats to their health (Thu
and Durrenberger 1998). The democratic process offers citizens access to
lawmakers, to the courts, and to direct action to redress their grievances.
However, the legislative process in many states has often been unresponsive to
citizen wishes concerning CAFOs (Cantrell et al. 1996). For example, 13 states
have enacted laws that inhibit citizens from speaking freely about agriculture
if it is disparaging. A representative example can be seen in a South Dakota
law that defines disparagement as “dissemination in any manner to the public of
any information that the disseminator knows to be false and that states or
implies that an agricultural food product is not safe for consumption by the
public or that generally accepted agricultural and management practices make
agricultural food products unsafe for consumption by the public. (South Dakota
Codified Laws 2006).”
All 50 states
have some form of right-to-farm legislation. This legislation serves to protect
farming operations from zoning laws or lawsuits that would overly restrict the
ability of farmers to do business (Chapin et al. 1998; Hamilton 1998).
Right-to-farm legislation varies from state to state but may include laws that
prevent zoning from limiting farm practices that have substantial detrimental
effects on neighbors, such as CAFO production. Right-to-farm laws may also
include preemption of other actions of local government that normally could
limit what businesses are allowed to do, known as home rule.
For example,
the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that county governments cannot use home rule
powers or protection of public health to promulgate laws that are more
restrictive than state laws currently in force (Worth County Friends of
Agriculture v. Worth County, Iowa, 2004). Although local governmental action
has been limited by the bias toward agricultural producers, individual actions
have not. Courts in several states have ruled that right-to-farm laws give only
limited protection from nuisance action. The Iowa Supreme Court in June 2004
found that CAFO immunity provisions written in Iowa statutes were unconstitutional
(Gacke v. Pork XTRA 2004). A district court in Illinois granted a temporary
injunction stopping the construction of a nearby CAFO based on an anticipatory
nuisance premise (Nickels et al. vs. Burnett 2002) that such a facility would
constitute reasonable interference with neighbors’ quality of life.
Most states
have enacted some forms of environmental laws aimed at protecting the
environment from agricultural discharges or emissions. One form of these laws
requires establishment of manure management plans. Typically, these laws call
for certain sizes of operations to apply for permits. These permits may include
the filing of a manure management plan, which calls for a plan for CAFO
operators to manage their manure in a manner to prevent water and soil
pollution. However, there is little if any performance inspection or
enforcement of these plans (Jackson et al. 2000). Nonenforcement is primarily
due to the lack of personnel and technical resources at state environmental
agencies. For example, some states may have 2,000 or more such operations but
not enough staff to efficiently process permit applications, much less get out
into the field to inspect performance of these operations. . . . .”
This article is
part of the mini-monograph “Environmental Health Impacts of Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations: Anticipating Hazards—Searching for Solutions.”
This workshop
was supported by grant P30 ES05605-14S from the Environmental Health Sciences
Research Center at The University of Iowa and the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences.
USEFUL IDIOTS
IN THIS PODCAST
THERE IS EMBEDDED A FILM OF A MEAT PACKING PLANT. THIS IS ONE OF THEIR MOST
INTERESTING SHOWS.
1:13:59
DURATION
**** ****
**** ****
No comments:
Post a Comment