Farmer is not against farming (03/02/07)

To the editor:

I would like to respond to the Letters to the Editor "Supports CAFOs" written by Loria Pursifull, Redkey.

I am a farmer and it would make no sense for me to be "against farming." I am also part of a statewide, grassroots group of citizens, that have joined in an information and support network, because of the concern about our environment, health, property values, and quality of life in regards to CAFOs. There are many farmers in this network and an equal amount of men and women. This is not a gender issue. This is not a farmer vs. non-farmer issue. It is a property rights issue.

We feel that no one has the right, by simply getting a permit, to bring damage and harm to his/her community and neighbors. The Right-to-Farm Act was passed to protect the farm community, not to give a few CAFO owners the right to pollute, devalue, and destroy farm communities. These CAFO operators must be held financially and environmentally accountable. The right to farm does not mean the right to harm.

I am involved in the third year of studying the research about industrialized farming. The fact that many Indiana counties had no restrictions before CAFOs were permitted is causing a great deal of turmoil in our state. The Indiana Land Resources Council is in the process of developing model ordinances that will serve as a guide for counties to develop their own ordinances, but will not be required. In this document, under "Odor Setback Guidelines," it is written that "the use of atmospheric air to dilute odors from livestock facilities by appropriate setback distances, is still the most popular and cost-effective strategy to reduce odor nuisance."

Yet, due to the lack of restrictions, CAFOs are not being located with enough separation to appropriately reduce the odor nuisance. For example, it was reported by IDEM that there are currently 4 million animals in Jay County in confined feeding operations. To put this in perspective, according to STATS Indiana, the population of Jay County in 2005 was 21,606.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Jay County has 384 square miles. That would be approximately 10,400 animals per square mile and that does not even include some of the most recent CAFO permits.

To infer that the concerns of neighbors and their health is unfounded, is not supported in the body of valid and reliable scientifically-based research. The health issues surrounding CAFOs are questioned in over 70 scientific studies, and the research continues.

On January 29, 2007, during the Indiana Senate Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee Meeting, for the hearing of three Senate Bills regarding CAFOs, I heard the following testimony: "Air pollutants of concern at CAFOs, in descending order of importance, were odor, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, greenhouse gases and volatile organic compounds." (Professor Al Heber, director of the Purdue Agricultural Air Quality Laboratory.)

Numerous research studies associated the air emissions from CAFOs to the prevalence of asthma symptoms among children and other respiratory problems in both adult and children populations. Other studies suggest that the inhalation of air from swine CAFOs may serve as an additional environmental exposure pathway for the transfer of multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens from swine to humans. In regard to your comparison of crop dust to animal facilities, Yuanjui Zhang, Department of Agricultural Engineering at the University of Illinois, in his livestock odor research, reported that "dust from animal facilities is very different from other types of dust such as field dust." It is "biologically active" containing "a variety of organic compounds, bacteria, fungi, endotoxins and dust mites, highly concentrated, and spans a wide spectrum of particle sizes and shapes, composed of dander, hair, feed dust and fecal materials."

These are just a few examples of the many studies that are providing the evidence and growing concern for the health of those living in close proximity to a CAFO.

Your statement, "I am sure with all of the added regulations and improved modern building requirements we are safer today than we have ever been," is not likely to relieve the fears of neighbors, when the effects of CAFOs are being confirmed to be harmful. We hear a lot about the "new technology" but find out it has not been developed yet, is not affordable, is not being used, or is not working. If the "information floating around has been instigated by some specific groups (led by women)," then why do you suppose North Carolina imposed a 10-year moratorium on new hog CAFOs?

Julie Alexander

Eaton[[In-content Ad]]