A prominent animal safety group is calling on restaurants to do more to ban the use of animal gestation crates where livestock and poultry are grown for meat.
A new report from the group Animal Equality said some chains have made progress but many are lagging. Dozens of U.S. restaurant companies pledged to end the use of gestation crates for pregnant pigs in their supply chains back in 2008. Since then, 11 states, including Iowa and others in the Midwest, have either restricted their use or outlawed them.
Devon Dear, institutional outreach manager Animal Equality, said some restaurant chains still do not comply but she is encouraged others do.
"We've seen some really big players in this industry move away from crates," Dear acknowledged. "For example, McDonald's, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Chipotle, Shake Shack, Panera Bread; these companies have all either significantly reduced or eliminated crates. We know that it can be done successfully."
Scientists said gestation crates, which amount to a space about the size of an airplane seat, are breeding grounds for disease. The report lists Denny's, Chick-fil-A, Dunkin, and KFC among 13 companies it contended have not been aggressive enough in reducing their use of the crates. Dear hopes the Farm Bill now being debated in Congress will put the issue in the spotlight.
In Iowa, the use of gestation crates grew along with the proliferation of large factory farms in the 1980s and 90s, where thousands of animals are confined in limited areas, creating health and environmental problems. Dear emphasized Animal Equality is concerned with the threats the conditions pose to animal welfare.
"When you have this many animals in one place, you're getting really high concentrations of feces, you're having all of the environmental impacts of this," Dear pointed out. "Pigs produce a ton of waste, and this has to be disposed of properly to not make nearby communities sick."
Dear argued the higher the pigs' stress levels, the higher the use of antibiotics, which often run off with manure into groundwater. Iowa's factory farmers have said they are responding to consumer demand for more consistently raised, high-quality pork and other products.
get more stories like this via email
Conservation groups are celebrating the end of a Massachusetts-based biotech company's pursuit of bringing genetically altered Atlantic salmon to market.
AquaBounty was the first company to get regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration to sell a genetically modified animal for human consumption in 2015, but it faced continuous legal challenges and consumer pushback.
Dana Perls, food and technology senior program manager with Friends of the Earth, said people just don't want to eat it.
"Grocery stores are refusing to sell it," said Perls. "Big restaurants are refusing to sell it. So, it's a market response."
Perls said the altered salmon put wild salmon - along with the fishing and Indigenous communities that rely on it - at risk.
In a statement, AquaBounty says it failed to raise enough capital to maintain its operations.
AquaBounty's AquaAdvantage brand salmon contained added genes from both Chinook salmon and the eel-like ocean pout to make it grow faster.
But polls show most Americans believe genetically engineering animals for protein production isn't an appropriate use of biotechnology.
Perls said consumers are increasingly rejecting industrial food production, and demanding their food be clearly and accurately labeled.
"People want to be able to choose what it is they're eating and what they're feeding their families," said Perls, "and we need to ensure that the food we raise is truly healthy, truly sustainable, and fully regulated for safety."
Perls said the demise of AquaBounty salmon will set a precedent for other companies investing in genetically altered animals.
At least 35 fish species are currently being modified around the world, including trout, catfish, and striped bass. The FDA has also approved genetically altered pigs and cows for food and medical use.
get more stories like this via email
Farmers in North Dakota and the rest of the country are monitoring an evolving legal case against a giant equipment manufacturer and they said repair restrictions are not the only service headaches farmers encounter.
The Federal Trade Commission last week sued John Deere, accusing the company of an unfairly dominant market share. It said farmers have to rely on Deere's network of authorized dealers for necessary repairs, driving up costs and creating scheduling delays.
Mark Watne, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, said he hopes the case brings out the facts in securing a resolution. He added the need for flexibility covers other ground, too.
"Items such as technology fees, and items such as, 'Well, you can only use this chemical with this seed, and it's got to be this brand,'" Watne outline. "Those things start to play out that we think are concerning."
He pointed out another area is transportation, where farmers might encounter vastly different price structures in getting their commodities shipped out, depending on the railway competition in various parts of the country. John Deere called the lawsuit "meritless," and said it plans to offer self-repair capabilities as farmers work with emerging technologies on tractors.
Watne acknowledged depending on the administration in the White House, they will see either aggressive or more lax approaches in confronting repair issues. He sees a long-standing pattern of laws being underutilized.
"There's really rules in place that have been there for 50 years or more that, through a number of administrations, haven't necessarily been enforced," Watne emphasized.
He admitted some of the progress seen in the Biden administration faces an uncertain future in the second term of President-elect Donald Trump, as some Trump appointees might prioritize certain fairness issues but could pass on other concerns voiced by smaller, independent farmers. Trump's selected appointee for FTC Chairman has been a vocal critic of the John Deere lawsuit.
Disclosure: The North Dakota Farmers Union contributes to our fund for reporting on Rural/Farming issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
The future looks promising for green energy and manufacturing in Appalachia, and states like West Virginia are slated to receive around $1 billion in federal investment since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, according to experts at ReImagine Appalachia's virtual strategy summit held earlier this week.
A Reimagine Appalachia report has found West Virginia and other Appalachian states are home to a higher-than-average share of manufacturing employment.
Jacob Hannah, CEO of Huntington-based nonprofit Coalfield Development, explained large manufacturing facilities are moving into the state, bringing new local jobs along with them.
"They're focused on localizing energy production at their sites," Hannah pointed out. "Because they consume a lot of energy and they're focused on workforce development because they need to hire a lot of folks and train a lot of folks."
Last year the Biden administration announced $475 million for projects in West Virginia and other states to boost clean energy development on current and former mine land. The funds will be used in Nicholas County to repurpose two former coal mines with utility-scale solar infrastructure, to power around 39,000 homes and create hundreds of construction jobs.
Solar development on degraded land and brownfields is expected to increase, along with use of residential solar. West Virginia's Office of Energy received $106 million last year from the Environmental Protection Agency's Solar for All
program to install solar panels on homes and reduce utility costs for low-income residents.
Mustafa Santiago Ali, executive vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, said continued federal investment is needed to help Appalachian residents build in healthy and thriving communities.
"We need to ensure communities without clean air and water, especially those suffering disproportionate environmental burdens from years of disinvestment and legacy pollution, get the funding and support that they need," Santiago Ali urged.
Green industries manufacturing alternatives to plastic including biodegradable and mycelium-based products are also on the horizon as potential regional economic drivers.
get more stories like this via email