1
MSc Political Science: European Politics and External Relations Master Thesis
Alexa Isabelle Ibadlit
Supervisor: Dr. Robin J. Pistorius Second Reader: Dr. Jeroen Doomernik 21 July 2017
THE AMERICAN MEAT CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION RISK MAP:
ITS EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
2
Abstract
An increasing amount of evidence has generated awareness towards the issue of Industrial Farm Animal Production Practices’ influence on meat consumption and production’s effect on human health and the environment, ultimately creating an overlap between these risks. Using this ‘Growing Overlap’ between environmental and human health consequences, this thesis elaborates upon the question of how United States Federal agricultural regulations and policies provoke IFAP practices’ impact on the following human health and environmental risks: biodiversity loss, chronic disease, climate change, earlier death, natural resource depletion, and pollution. In addition, this research aims to contribute to the broader field of meat consumption and production risk governance by introducing the American Meat Risk Regime, a conceptualization based off of the works of Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society and Christopher Hood’s, Henry Rothstein’s, and Robert Baldwin’s The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regime Regulations. The AMRR is specifically comprised of Beck’s characterization of ‘Risk’ and Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s ‘Content Dimension’ in order to conceptualize the combination of regime and society related features of both the U.S. IFAP System and U.S. Federal agricultural governance. The Animal Welfare Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 serve as this thesis’s selected units of analysis due to their reputations as the ‘Minimum Standard’ of U.S. agricultural management. The findings from this research are complimented by a combination of empirical data, literature, policy analyses, and the case study selection of the U.S. This thesis concludes that U.S. Federal agricultural regulations and policies, in terms of the AWA and the NEPA, are ineffectively exercised, ultimately provoking the human health and environmental risks associated with IFAP procedures.
3
Acknowledgements
First, and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Robin Pistorius, for guiding me throughout this difficult and long process. At the Thesis Market in the fall of 2016, I told Robin my concerns about this research project since this was my first time writing a thesis; however, he assured me that he would work with me throughout every step of the way. He always showed assurance when I felt overwhelmed, confidence when I was doubtful, and patience when I struggled. Above all, his advice and feedback always kept me on track towards completing this thesis. I would like to express my gratitude towards Dr. Jeroen Doomernik for taking the time to assess this thesis as the second reader. I also want to express my appreciation for my friends, both here in the Netherlands and back in the United States. All of your encouragement has motivated me to continue to work hard, especially in times of stress. I could not have done it without you all. Furthermore, I would like to thank my mother and brother for always believing in me. I constantly felt your love and support all the way back home from California. I am so grateful for all of the sacrifices that my family has made for me to have the opportunity to achieve higher education abroad. Lastly, I would like to dedicate the work of this thesis to my father. Although his passing in February was very tragic, I found the courage and strength to complete this Master Program in honor of him. May he rest in peace.
4
Contents
Abbreviations ... 7 List of Figures and Tables ... 8 1. Introduction ... 9 1.1 Stating the Problem: The Industrial Farm Animal Production System’s Influence on Human Health and the Environment as a Result of Meat Consumption and Production 9 1.1.1 The Severity of American Meat Consumption’s Effects on Human Health ... 10 1.1.2 The Severity of American Meat Production’s Effects on the Environment ... 11
1.2 Aim of Research 12
1.2.1 Research Question ... 13 1.2.2 Personal Motivation ... 13 1.3 Introducing the ‘Growing Overlap’ of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of
Meat Consumption and Production 14
1.4 The American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map 15
1.5 Overview of Thesis 17
2. Theoretical Framework and Conceptualization ... 19
2.1 Understanding a New Kind of Society: ‘Risk Society’ 19
2.1.1 Historical Backdrop ... 19 2.1.2 Theoretical Depth ... 20 2.2 Understanding the Governance of Risk: ‘Risk Regulation Regime’ 21 2.2.1 Foundation of Risk Regulation Regimes ... 21 2.2.2 The Purpose of Risk Regulation Regimes ... 22 2.3 The ‘Complimentary’ Features of Risk Society and Risk Regulation Regimes 23 2.3.1 Beck’s Characterization of ‘Risk’ ... 23 2.3.2 Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s ‘Content Dimension’ ... 24
2.4 Linking Risk Society and Risk Regulation Regimes 25
2.5 Conceptualizing the American Meat Risk Regime 26
3. Methodology ... 29
3.1 The Tools Used to Construct this Thesis 29
3.2 Definition and Method of a ‘Single Case Study’ Approach Used in this Thesis 30
3.3 Why a Single Case Study Approach 31
3.4 Advantages and Benefits to the Single Case Study Approach 31
5 4. Revisiting the American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map ... 33 4.1 Description of the United States Meat Industry: The Industrial Farm Animal
Production Model 34
4.2 Explanation of the Industrial Farm Animal Production Practices that are Linked to
Human Health Risks 35
4.2.1 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Confinement Conditions’ Influence on Animal and Human Health ... 35 4.2.2 The Usage of Antibiotics and Feed Additives: How it Leads to Illnesses and
Infections ... 36 4.2.3 Worker Health: Exposure to Disease, Infection, and Trauma ... 37 4.3 Explanation of the Industrial Farm Animal Production Practices that are Linked to
Environmental Risks 38
4.3.1 Animal Waste: Pollution of Waterways ... 38 4.3.2 Global Food Security: Exhaustion of Land and Water Usage ... 39 4.3.3 Release of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Contribution to Climate Change ... 40 4.4 Defining the ‘Growing Overlap’ of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of
Meat Consumption and Production 40
4.5 Restating the Significance of the ‘Growing Overlap’ of Huma Health and
Environmental Risks of Meat Consumption and Production 43
5. Analysis of United States Agricultural Regulations and Policies ... 44 5.1 United States Federal Agricultural Regulations and Policies under the United States
Department of Agriculture 44
5.1.1 The Animal Welfare Act: History, Purpose, Structure, and Relevance to this Thesis ... 45 5.1.2 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: History, Purpose, Structure, and
Relevance to this Thesis 46
5.2 The Animal Welfare Act’s Associations with Intolerable Risks for Human Health 48 5.3 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969’s Associations with Intolerable Risks
for the Environment 50
5.4 Confirming the ‘Growing Overlap’ of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of
Meat Consumption and Production 52
6. Conclusion ... 54
6.1 Research Question 54
6.2 Findings: Theoretical and Analytical Levels of Depth 54
6 References ... 57
7
Abbreviations
ACS American Cancer Society ADA American Dietetic Association
AMCPRM American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map AMRR American Meat Risk Regime
AWA Animal Welfare Act
CAFOs Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CJD Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease CO₂ Carbon Dioxide
CH₄ Methane
EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FDA Food and Drug Administration GHG Greenhouse Gas
IFAP Industrial Farm Animal Production
MRSA Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus NAMI North American Meat Institute
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 N₂O Nitrous Oxide
PTSD Traumatic Stress Disorder U.S. United States
USD United States Dollar
USDA United States Department of Agriculture WHO World Health Organization
8
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Introduction to the ‘Growing Overlap’ of Human Health and Environmental Risks….15 Figure 2: The American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map………16 Table 3: The American Meat Risk Regime………27 Figure 4: The American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map………33 Figure 5: Defining the ‘Growing Overlap’ of Human Health and Environmental Risks………...41 Figure 6: Causal Relationships between Industrial Farm Animal Production Practices and Human Health and Environmental Risks………42 Figure 7: Causal Relationships that the Animal Welfare Act Produces……….49
9
1. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to set up the basis for approaching the topic of meat consumption and production’s effects on human health and the environment. This chapter will serve as a guide that will familiarize the reader with the knowledge needed to understand the objective of this thesis.
1.1 Stating the Problem: The Industrial Farm Animal Production System’s Influence on Human Health and the Environment as a Result of Meat Consumption and Production The global human population’s dietary shift towards an increased consumption of animal products has ushered in an industrial transformation of agricultural production systems. These transitions have fueled international concerns towards meat consumption and production’s effects on human health and the environment, as provoked by Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) Models. (Graca, Calheiros, & Olivieria, 2015; Popkin, 2006) Respectively, both environmental and human health sectors are considered as individual entities; however, there is a growing body of evidence that links them together due to IFAP associated practices’ influence on meat consumption and production (Macdiarmid, Douglas, & Campbell, 2015).
In terms of human health, a number of studies illustrate that meat consumption leads to higher intakes of cholesterol and saturated fats which are associated with an increased risk for chronic disease and mortality risks (Micha et al. 2010; Wang & Beydoun, 2009). For example, a majority of the meat consuming human population suffer from hypertension, diabetes, or obesity as a result of meat consumption patterns (Sinha et al. 2010). On the environmental front, meat production activities and processes are responsible for biodiversity loss, climate change, deforestation, and the exhaustion of natural resources (Marlow et al. 2009). To elaborate, biodiversity is exposed since 70% of the world’s forests are cleared for animal feed and production, the effects of climate change worsen since animal processing facilities release 14.5% of the world’s anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and natural resources are depleted due to the demand of land and water needed (Djekic, 2015; Stoll-Kleeman & Schmidt, 2016).
Due to the severity of these consequences, the global human population has become more aware and critical of IFAP activities’ influence on the environment, human health, meat consumption and production (Roos et al. 2011). IFAP Systems’ sole purpose for existing is to maximize the production of animal products for the consumer public. Therefore, it is evident that diets rich in meat fuel IFAP Models’ dependence on meeting both global demands of meat
10
consumption and production. However, this relationship significantly contributes to the human health and environmental epidemics associated with IFAP characteristics (Rossi & Garner, 2009). Thus, it should be noted that this is illustrated in the case of the United States (U.S.) IFAP System.
1.1.1 The Severity of American Meat Consumption’s Effects on Human Health
It is evident that the combination of the United States’ (U.S.) high dietary dependence on protein and its agricultural industry’s usage of IFAP methods provoke human health risks. (Micha et al. 2010; Sinha et al. 2010; Pan et al. 2012). To elaborate, the average American consumes 3 times the amount of the ‘Recommended’ daily amount of protein, making them susceptible to a variety of health problems including: certain cancers, earlier death, heart disease, obesity, and type-II diabetes (John Hopkins, 2017).
The American Cancer Society (ACS) states that more than 600,000 Americans die from cancer each year. Although research shows that different types of cancers are caused for a variety of reasons, the ACS estimates that approximately 1 3⁄ of Americans diagnosed with cancer are due to imbalanced diets, obesity, and physical inactivity. (ACS, 2017). Each of these reasons for cancer diagnosis relate to risks of excess meat consumption (John Hopkins, 2017).
Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that over $147 billion U.S. Dollars (USD) are spent on obesity-related health problems (CDC, 2017). For example, obesity does not strictly refer to weight problems, it also increases the chance of other chronic diseases, such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia (Kaluza, Wolk, & Larsson, 2012; Micha et al. 2010; Sinha et al. 2010). An estimated 36.5% of adults and 17% of children in the U.S are obese or overweight, and these numbers are expected to increase (CDC, 2017).
In the U.S., diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death. An estimated 29 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes, while 86 million Americans have prediabetes, which increases the chance of a person’s risk of type-II diabetes and other associated health problems. To elaborate, research has shown that diabetes is also associated with heart disease, kidney failure, non- traumatic lower limb amputations, new cases of blindness, and stroke. (CDC, 2016)
These health statistics are sobering and suggest that the health risks associated with meat consumption are compounding. This means that the diagnosis of one health issue, such as diabetes, can lead to another, such as obesity, and so on. However, diets with lesser or no amounts of animal
11 products are less likely to contract these types of health risks (Olrich et al. 2013; Sinha et al. 2010; Wang & Beydoun, 2009). For example, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) argued that, “Vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases” (ADA, 2009). Ultimately, a dietary shift towards more plant based foods can reduce the risks of health issues and undermine the purpose of an IFAP System, since the demand for animal products would decrease to a degree that would no longer require intensified practices of industrial production (Rossi & Garner, 2009).
1.1.2 The Severity of American Meat Production’s Effects on the Environment
The demand of animal products for consumption in the Unites States (U.S.) has intensified agricultural processes under the Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) Model. However, these activities have resulted in severe consequences for the environment (Hallstrom, Roos, & Borjesson, 2014). For example, the environmental risks of climate change, pollution, natural resource depletion, and biodiversity loss are further provoked by IFAP methods.
Climate change is one of the most dangerous environmental issues. Research suggests that IFAP processing and producing practices are one of the leading contributors of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, releasing an estimated 18% - 51%. The large and uncontrolled release of IFAP related GHG emissions disrupts the Earth’s natural atmospheric gases, ultimately provoking changes to the climate. (Fiala, 2008; McMichael et al. 2007; Stehfast et al. 2009).
In addition to the release of GHG emissions, IFAP facilities are responsible for multiple types of pollution that affect surrounding communities. In the case of ammonia pollution, an estimated 75% of communities nearby IFAP plantations have reported incidents of low quality air levels (Pew, 2008a). This example of pollution not only harms the environment, but also puts local community health at risk for airborne diseases from nearby IFAP buildings.
Agricultural purposes, specifically IFAP related procedures, deplete natural resources, especially water and land resources. For example, 87% of freshwater sources in the U.S. are dedicated to agricultural usage, leaving millions of Americans with either contaminated waterways or a lack of fresh water (Pew, 2008a, Pew, 2008b; Pew, 2008c; Pew, 2008d). Research has found that the U.S. IFAP System is more water intensive than non-industrial animal agricultural models
12 and uses 100 times more water than plant based agricultural models. Moreover, approximately 30% of the entire planet’s land resources are dedicated to agricultural needs. Of that 30%, 70% of it is primarily used for livestock, such as animal feed and plantations. (Pew, 2008a; UN FAO, 2006). Evidence suggests that the clearing of forests for agricultural usage destroys natural habitats and leaves certain species vulnerable to hunters and poachers (Greenpeace, 2017).
The statistics concerning industrial animal agriculture suggests that the world cannot handle the rate at which the U.S. IFAP Model produces animal products (Foer, 2009). Therefore, environmental issues continue to remain as the top priority of international agendas due to how influential environmental degradation can be in either furthering or preventing the current state of human society (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003). This suggests that the environmental risks associated with IFAP processes not only harm the environment, but also challenge current global crises, such as economic imbalance, food insecurity, and ineffective public policy (McMichael et al. 2007; Rossi & Garner, 2009). Thus, the U.S. IFAP System’s influence on the environment is extremely dangerous.
1.2 Aim of Research
The problem of meat consumption and production’s impact on human health and the environment is evident. To elaborate, it serves as one of the world’s most controversial issues that addresses a wide range of current problems including: animal welfare, environmental degradation and preservation, and human health epidemics (De Backer & Hudders, 2015). This suggests that modern relations between the environment, human health, and meat consumption and production is an increasingly complex multifaceted issue (McMichael et al. 2007). A large body of evidence has addressed this concern by providing insight on how to prevent the human health and environmental risks associated with Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) Systems (Briggs et al. 2013; Macdiarmid et al. 2012; Saxe, Larsen & Mogensen, 2013). This rapidly increasing amount of research that aims to undermine the human health and environmental effects of meat consumption and production have solidified the awareness, existence, and relevance of this problem (Scarborough et al. 2012).
However, there is a gap in literature that hardly addresses agricultural governance’s role in either preventing or provoking the environmental and human health risks associated with meat consumption and production within an IFAP System (Goldberg, 2016; Rossi & Garner, 2009). To
13 elaborate, current studies offer critiques from the common perspectives of feminist ethics of care, coherentism, rights theory, and utilitarianism (Donovan, 2007, Rollin, 1995, Regan, 2001; Singer, 2002). Therefore, this thesis seeks to address this gap in literature by contributing to the theoretical field of risk governance and management against the context of the United States (U.S.) IFAP Model’s impact on human health and environmental domains. By doing this, this study will move beyond the ‘Common’ solution of simply adopting plant based sustainable diets and lifestyles (Biesbroek et al. 2014; Laestadius, Neff, & Frattaroli, 2013; Soret et al. 2014). Thus, this thesis will elaborate upon the issue of the U.S. IFAP Model’s effect on the environment and human health by assessing its Federal domain of agricultural governance.
1.2.1 Research Question
This thesis will be based around the examination of United States (U.S.) Federal agricultural regulations and policies that specifically relate to meat consumption and production’s impact on human health and the environment. Due to the scope of this research, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 were selected for analysis since they have the reputation as the ‘Golden Standard’ of American agricultural regulations and policies (USDA, 2017a). The primary goal of these analyses are to evaluate whether or not the environmental and human health side effects of meat consumption and production are directly associated with U.S. Federal agricultural regulations and policies. Thus, this thesis aims to answer this core research question:
How do United States Federal agricultural regulations and policies provoke American meat consumption and production’s effects on human health and the environment?
1.2.2 Personal Motivation
Growing up in the United States (U.S.), it was common for news headlines to focus on how high levels of meat consumption contributed to the health epidemic in the country. I always questioned how and why the rest of the world concluded that the U.S. was the ‘Fattest’ country in the entire world. Is it our car dependent lifestyles that prevent us from exercise? Is it our love for bizarre and deep fried foods? Is it our broad and weak food policies? Is it our overwhelmingly enormous portions of food and unlimited beverage refills? Or could it be the combination of all these things?
14 I assumed that American food cultural norms, such as extra-large portions, oily foods, and unlimited beverage refills was the universal norm; however, that assumption was proven wrong the moment I moved abroad. My experiences as an exchange student in both Madrid and Utrecht changed my perception of the American food culture. Initially, I was under the impression that Dutch and Spanish grocery store and restaurant sized portions were extremely small; however, after a while, I realized that American portions were simply too big. Traveling to multiple European countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, the Republic of Ireland, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom all suggested that European countries serve food portions that are more controlled than American servings. I never drank a beverage or ate a portion of food that lived up to the ‘American Sized’ portion reputation while I have been in Europe.
My experiences abroad helped me realize that the American population is susceptible to overeating due to the all you can eat buffet style restaurants, happy hours, large portions, and refillable drinks, all of which contribute to the American health crisis. Now, every time I return to California and go to a grocery store or restaurant, I cannot help but question how unhealthy our food portions are, not only for the sake of human health, but also for the environment. As an American living in the Netherlands, I cannot help but compare how opposite American and European policy approaches are, specifically within the agricultural sector, and how these differences either prevent of provoke the risks of meat consumption and production.
The combination of the differences between American and European agricultural levels of regulation and food cultures serve as my inspiration and motivation for this thesis. I would have never imagined that ‘Culture Shock’ and my curiosity for the role of governance would serve as the backbone of this research. Prior to moving to the Netherlands, I rarely questioned the effects of American meat consumption and production on human health and the environment; however, now I want to further my understanding of these drastic effects.
1.3 Introducing the ‘Growing Overlap’ of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of Meat Consumption and Production
The aim of this section is to set up the basis for understanding what the combination of meat consumption and production’s influence on the environment and human health produces. To
15
elaborate, the connection between the environment, human health, and meat consumption and production will be conceptualized by Figure 1 in order to explain the logic behind this relationship.
Figure 1: Illustration that shows how meat consumption and production’s effects on human health and the
environment have led to the ‘Growing Overlap’ of these risks (Goldberg, 2016, John Hopkins, 2017, Pew 2008a)
As illustrated in Figure 1, it is evident that there is a process in which the activities and practices relating to meat consumption and production lead to certain types of risks. The risks of the environment and human health are divided into their respective and separate entities in order to emphasize the presence of their own domain with specific details, evidence, and management. However, the most important aspect to note behind this relationship, is meat consumption and production’s establishment of a ‘Growing Overlap’ between the individual units of human health and environmental risks.
In Figure 1, the contrast in size between the first and last images of the growing overlap between environmental and human health effects suggest that this overlap is growing. To elaborate, the expansion between human health and environmental issues is supported by a growing body of evidence and literature that addresses the influence of meat consumption and production methods and practices (Foer, 2009; Pew, 2008a, Pew, 2008c; Rossi & Garner, 2009). The data and information presented in these studies suggest that the severity of both environmental and human health problems continue to worsen. As long as agricultural systems continue to perpetuate these effects, this overlap will continue to expand. Thus, this research aims to address and conceptualize this growing overlap in order to elaborate upon its existence, relevance, and significance.
1.4 The American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map
The field of meat consumption and production’s effects on human health and the environment is a broad topic; therefore, for the purpose of this thesis, the United States (U.S.) Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) System will serve as the focus for addressing the ‘Growing Overlap’ between environmental and human health problems. The application of this overlap to the U.S. IFAP Model has led to the creation of the American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map
16
(AMCPRM). The purpose of a ‘Risk Map’ is to outline the identification, management and relationship between certain types of risk. Therefore, the primary purpose of the AMCPRM is to provide a visualization that explicitly addresses the human health and environmental risks as a result of meat consumption and production practices associated with the U.S. IFAP Model.
Figure 2: The American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map
As illustrated in Figure 2, it is evident that American meat consumption and production practices relating to the U.S. IFAP System provoke human health and environmental risks. Under the ‘American Meat Consumption and Production’ box, there are 2 connecting boxes that elaborate
17
upon the drivers of both meat consumption and production. The purpose of listing these drivers are to provide insight into understanding how and why the American population would allow themselves to be vulnerable to the severe human health and environmental risks of: certain cancers, earlier death, heart disease, obesity, type-II diabetes, biodiversity loss, climate change, natural resource depletion, and pollution. Furthermore, under the aforementioned risks are boxes containing lists of IFAP practices that are associated with the specific examples of both environmental and human health issues. This is important because the IFAP characteristics of animal waste, antibiotics and feed additives, animal waste, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), contribution to climate change, resource exhaustion, and worker health safety will be elaborated upon in order to help answer the research question. In essence, the aim of the AMCPRM is to help guide the reader through the specific details of the U.S. IFAP Model in order to assess how U.S. Federal agricultural levels of governance are associated with intolerable risks for human health and the environment.
1.5 Overview of Thesis
The structure of this thesis will consist of a series of chapters that are designed to walk the reader through the approach and logic of answering this thesis’s research question. Following this introductory chapter, chapter 2 discusses the application and usage of the conceptualizations and theoretical framework of this thesis. The purpose of chapter 2 is to set up the basis for understanding the works of Ulrich Beck, Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin. Chapter 2 will elaborate upon the historical contexts, key features, and conceptualizations of Beck’s Risk Society and Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regime Regulation. Combining the works of Beck, Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin, this chapter will introduce the American Meat Risk Regime (AMRR), which serves as this thesis’s theoretical backbone.
Chapter 3 consists of this thesis’s methodology. In this chapter, the databases, journals, and sources used to construct this thesis will be elaborated upon. Then, this thesis’s application and usage of a single case study approach will be discussed. The aim of chapter 3 is to offer insight into the process used to construct this research. Chapter 3 concludes with briefly mentioning the United States (U.S.), as this thesis’s case selection.
18 After introducing this thesis’s case selection of the U.S., chapter 4 will revisit the American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map (AMCPRM). By doing this, every detail illustrated in the AMCPRM will be elaborated upon in great detail including the description of the U.S. Industrial Fam Animal Production (IFAP) Model and the certain IFAP associated features including: concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), antibiotics and feed additives, workers’ exposure to risks, animal waste, global food security, and climate change. Then, using the elaboration of these IFAP characteristics, chapter 4 will present ways in which the ‘Growing Overlap’ between human health and environmental risks are reinforced.
Furthermore, Chapter 5 provides the analyses of U.S. Federal agricultural regulations and policies including the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. First, this chapter will briefly introduce the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in order to illustrate the type of governance that the AWA and the NEPA are under. Then, this chapter will elaborate upon the history, purpose, structure, and relevance of the AWA and NEPA in order to set up the examinations of these policies. Using the empirical data provided by these analyses, this chapter will confirm the existence of this ‘Growing Overlap’ between human health and environment risks.
Lastly, Chapter 6 will conclude this research. Chapter 6 first begins by reintroducing this thesis’s research question. Then, this chapter will elaborate upon this study’s analytical and theoretical levels of contribution to the broader field of meat consumption and production’s influence on human health and the environment, against the context of IFAP Systems. This chapter will conclude with recommendations for future research in order to prevent the human health and environmental effects associated with IFAP Models.
19
2. Theoretical Framework and Conceptualization
The core of this research’s theoretical framework is based off of the works of Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society and Christopher Hood’s, Henry Rothstein’s, and Robert Baldwin’s The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. In this chapter, each theory is introduced in order to emphasize their relevance to the topic of meat consumption and production’s effects on human health and the environment under the United States (U.S.) Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) Model. The in-depth descriptions of risk society and risk regulation regime suggest that they share a complimentary relationship, where both theories have aspects that could improve and strengthen the other. This serves as the catalyst that led to this thesis’s creation of the American Meat Risk Regime (AMRR), a theoretical leap used to conceptualize the governance needed to regulate the effects of meat consumption and production, as illustrated in the American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map (AMCPRM). Thus, this chapter attempts to justify the creation of the AMRR by molding together theories that are respectively separate from one another.
2.1 Understanding a New Kind of Society: ‘Risk Society’
The concept of a ‘Risk Society’ established the idea of ‘Risk’ on the international agenda by exposing a wide range of issues concerning human health, the environment, and personal risks (Adam, Beck, & Van Loon, 2000). In this section, the historical context and theoretical understanding of Ulrich Beck’s construction of a risk society will be introduced. Thus, the aim of this section is to serve as a guide to understanding the idea of Beck’s risk society.
2.1.1 Historical Backdrop
For Beck, the combination of the post-war boom and the escalation of capitalism ushered in a ‘New’ model of social organization that was marked by a higher degree of individualization (Boudia & Jas, 2007). His work sought to examine the birth of this new society, the challenges posed by it, and the political transformations needed to deal with such issues (Beck, 2006). Threats to human health and the environment throughout the 1980’s were viewed as evidence that the global human population had welcomed in this new era (Boudia & Jas, 2007). For example, reports of an ozone hole over Antarctica drove the risks of global climate change into the public’s consciousness, the nuclear catastrophe at the Chernobyl atomic power plant caused anxiety throughout Europe, and the first ‘flood’ of environmental legislation occurred most of the, then,
20 Western industrialized powers (European Environmental Agency, 2011, Rasborg, 2012; World Nuclear Association, 2016).
It was during this time period where international concerns began focusing on the ‘Unintended Consequences’ of the rapid development of industrial modernization (Beck, 1992; Rasborg, 2012). Initially, the general approach was to preserve the industrial movement’s economic growth and success, while at the same time preventing the unwanted effects of human health and environmental harm. However, this strategy left a number of environmental and human health issues neglected by governmental regulatory efforts. (Matten, 2014). The combination of this unsuccessful approach and the aforementioned events during the 1980’s brought attention to the concept of risk (Webler et al. 2001). It was against this historical backdrop when Beck first published Risk Society in Germany in 1986.
2.1.2 Theoretical Depth
On a theoretical level, the work of Risk Society illustrates the application and development of Anthony Giddens’ conceptualization of Reflexive Modernization (Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 1994). The concept of reflexive modernization stands in contrast to classical modernization. To elaborate, classical modernity is regarded as the rationalization of the traditional makeup of societies, where it manifests in the transition from a ‘Traditional’ society to a ‘Modern’ society (Matten, 2014). It should be noted that this traditional society is also referred to as a ‘First Modern’ or ‘Simple Modern Society’, where social changes solely occur within a stable system of coordinates.
The idea behind reflexive modernization throws all of the basic social principles of a simple modern society into flux. (Beck, Bonns & Lau, 2003) This process is referred to as ‘Reflexivity’, where current social practices are examined and reformed in light of the new incoming information about those very practices (Giddens, 1999). Therefore, reflexive modernization no longer ‘Modernizes’ traditional societies, but instead, modern societies become the object of their own modernization (Matten, 2004). This is referred to as the ‘Modernization of Modern Society’, a process where a risk society or a ‘Second Modern Society’ are redefined by new types of capitalism, global order, labor, lifestyle, nature, state, and subjectivity. (Beck, Bonss, & Lau, 2003)
Beck argues that reflexive modernization not only produces this example of structural change, but also a transformative relationship between social agents and social structures. To elaborate, when modernization reaches a certain level, social agents tend to become more
21 individualized by releasing themselves from structural constraints. This produces an effect where structural change forces social actors to become progressively more free, which allows them to actively shape the process of modernization. (Beck, 1992)
Furthermore, the process of reflexive modernization suggests that risk societies find themselves confronted with significant and unignorable consequences of their new modern lifestyle (Matten, 2004). These risks are unintended and unwanted ‘Side Effects’ that cannot be prepared for or predicted; however, they occur within the successes of industrial societies. While the global human population continues to focus on economic and financial growth, the severity of these risks worsen. Thus, Beck argues that these types of risks have made their way onto the international agenda due to the need for risk management. (Sørensen & Christiansen, 2012).
2.2 Understanding the Governance of Risk: ‘Risk Regulation Regime’
The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes is a guide to the evaluation of risk regulation which offers detailed assessment frameworks for classifying the different types of risks and regimes (Born, 2003). Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin’s work develops the concept of ‘Risk Regulation Regime’ to illustrate how risk based approaches vary depending on the domain (Lodge, 2002). Thus, their work is considered as a leap within the public policy realm due to its systematic awareness of the diverse nature of institutions, practices, and settings within the risk governance sector (Weale, 2001).
2.2.1 Foundation of Risk Regulation Regimes
Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin based their work around the establishment of the conceptualization of ‘Risk’ and its relationship to society. To elaborate, they addressed the idea of risk in terms of Ulrich Beck’s risk society, Giandomenico Majone’s regulatory state, and Michael Power’s audit society. However, Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin argue that the best known conceptualization of risk belongs to Beck. It is against the idea of Beck’s work in which they compare, describe, and explain the variation in how the different types of risk are handled by the state.
Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin claim that the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Crisis, also known as Mad Cow Disease, throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s epitomized Beck’s characterization of a risk society. To elaborate, the BSE Crisis led to the application of ambiguous
22 language as opposed to qualitative language, to everyday common activities, such as drinking and eating. For example, both governmental and scientific sectors began to use words such as ‘Safe’ and ‘Unsafe’ instead of ‘Healthy’ and ‘Wholesome’, which ultimately produced a sense of danger. This example illustrates how risk societies are unaware of how to approach risk governance and management.
Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin argue that whether or not Beck’s risk society is regarded as ‘Historically Accurate’ or ‘Theoretically Coherent’, it is responsible for the rapidly increasing discussion and research centered around the concept of risk governance. This suggests that risk society serves as the foundation of their work based off of the variety of risk based approaches. Thus, it is evident that Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin have used the concept of Beck’s risk society as a point of departure that led to their understanding of risk governance. (Hood, Rothstein, & Baldwin, 2000)
2.2.2 The Purpose of Risk Regulation Regimes
Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin argue that their idea of risk regulation regimes has 3 specific approaches that ultimately represents its objective. They use the term ‘Regime’ to illustrate the complexity behind the management and regulation of specific risks within a domain.
The first approach that Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin argue their risk regulation regimes as is systems. This means that risk regulation regimes are characterized by sets of interconnected and interacting aspects as opposed to separate individual aspects. Viewing risk regulation regimes as systems suggest that the relationship between citizens, the government, and policy makers is important since they need to act and work together in order to produce effective levels of risk management.
Furthermore, the second approach views risk regulation regimes as entities with certain degrees of continuity over multiple periods of time. This suggests that regulatory systems are seldom static because they constantly undergo incremental adjustments and steady trends. In this case, adjustment refers to the dynamic transformations that occur across sets of policy instruments that regulate specific risks as opposed to slight changes within existing regimes. For example, the occurrence of traffic accidents causes an extra item, such as seat belt examinations, to be added to the routine set of tests in mandatory vehicle inspection processes is not an example of risk
23 regulation regimes as entities. However, replacing quarantine requirements for imported animals with valid vaccination documents is an example of a risk regulation regime as an entity.
The third and final approach in understanding the purpose behind risk regulation regimes is characterizing them as bounded systems. These systems create more focused and narrow risk regulation regimes instead of broad and loose approaches. To elaborate, rather than having to balance out the progress and work towards improving each component of risk regulation, bounded systems can single out components of a particular risk and improve upon them.
The combination of these approaches suggest that the purpose of risk regulation regimes is to adapt to the specific characteristics of a risk and its features. This level of adaptability suggest that risk regulation regimes effectively function when using the right approach to reduce the targeted risk. Thus, risk regulation regimes are effective in improving and maintaining multiples types of risk. (Hood, Rothstein, & Baldwin, 2000)
2.3 The ‘Complimentary’ Features of Risk Society and Risk Regulation Regimes
As mentioned earlier, the aim of this research’s theoretical contribution is to illustrate how the works of Ulrich Beck, Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin can improve one another. Therefore, the purpose of this section is to elaborate upon the key features that led to the construction of the American Meat Risk Regime (AMRR). This includes Beck’s definition of ‘Risk’ within a risk society and the ‘Content Dimension’ of Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s risk regulation regimes.
2.3.1 Beck’s Characterization of ‘Risk’
Risk is not a new phenomenon; therefore, Ulrich Beck differentiated between the ideas of ‘Dangers’ and ‘Risks’ in order to emphasize the application and conceptualization of the idea of risk within a risk society (Beck, 1994). To elaborate, dangers have always had the potential to threaten the global human population, whereas risks originate in the decisions made by individuals. Traffic or workplace incidents were always recognized within traditional societies and marked by the characteristic of ‘Insurance’. Beck argues that insurance is defined by the failure of traditional institutions coping with their side effects of modernization. Therefore, the inherent risks of modernization, such as climate change or large scale agricultural production challenge the capacity of these insurance solutions. (Matten, 2004). In order to solidify the distinction between risks
24 within a traditional and modern society, Beck elaborates upon 4 specific features that reinforce the idea of risks within a risk society (Beck, 1994).
The first characteristic refers to the individual’s decision in terms of any risk. Within a risk society, if an individual is exposed to risks that are considered by the government or society then these risks are the result of an inescapable lifestyle, such as industrialization or modernization. This suggests that individuals exposed to risks within a risk society have no control over their vulnerability to risks. The second characteristic in which Beck uses to define risk within a modern society is the scope of destruction. (Matten, 2004) To elaborate, risks within an industrial society are no longer limited by the boundaries of a traditional society, such as specific groups of people, locations, or timespans (Beck, 2002). For example, environmental risks, such as climate change does not target a particular group of people, instead it affects the entire global human population. (Matten, 2004)
Furthermore, the third characteristic of risks within a risk society is the calculation of destruction. Risks within an industrial society cannot be calculated in terms of damage, insurance, and occurrence. The fourth and final characteristic is responsibility. This concerns the difficulty behind addressing the legal issues of who ‘Causes’ and who is to ‘Blame’ for risks since a combination of actors are at fault. Within a risk society, the issue of responsibility remains open as opposed to ‘Fair’ and ‘Just’. (Beck, 1994, Beck, 2002; Matten, 2004)
This characterization of risk suggests that these side effects are no longer limited to the traditional boundaries of the industrial citizen, cannot target specific groups within society, and cannot be controlled on the nation state level (Beck, 2002; Matten, 2004). Thus, the primary concern addressing risk societies is how to fabricate control over the uncontrollable risks in economy, lifestyle, politics, science, and technology (Adam, 2002, Beck, 1992, Featherstone, 2000).
2.3.2 Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s ‘Content Dimension’
Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin argue that their basis of risk regulation regimes are analytic constructs instead of direct observable entities; therefore, they created the concept of ‘Dimensions’ to help simplify the process of comparing and understanding the various types of risk based approaches. Although there are 3 dimensions that Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin use to characterize risk regulation regime, only the ‘Content’ dimension will be
25 elaborated upon. The content dimension serves most relevant to the topic of environmental and human health risks within the United States’ (U.S.) modernization of Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) practices.
The content dimension includes the features of size, structure, and style. Size is defined by 2 approaches. The first refers to how far policy makers are willing to go in order to collect information about risks and how far they will allow risk toleration to go in order to achieve changes within a regime. However, the second approach is much less aggressive and focuses on the overall scale of investment that is contributed to from all sources involved. Size is relevant for the issue of balancing market and state, the degree of anticipation in risk regulation, the extent of regulatory bureaucracy, and the threshold of risk toleration in regulation.
Furthermore, the second element of regime content is characterized by structure. Structure refers to the way regulation is organized, the way resources are distributed, and what institutional adjustments are adopted. Structure is important because it maintains the balance between direct and indirect enforcements of regulation.
The third and final aspect within the content dimension is style. Style is defined by the attitudes of those involved with regulation and the formal and informal processes which regulation operates within. It can be understood from 2 perspectives. The first assesses whether or not regimes actors involved abide by the guidelines as opposed to a ‘Command and Control’ approach, which violates protocol. The second approach focuses on the beliefs of regulatory actors and whether they express their personal opinions towards policy objectives. Style serves as a central issue for those who are concerned with how the role of attitude and culture is applied to risk based approaches. (Hood, Rothstein, & Baldwin, 2000).
2.4 Linking Risk Society and Risk Regulation Regimes
Based off of the introductions of Ulrich Beck’s risk society and Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin’s risk regulation regimes, it is evident that these theoretical approaches share a relationship to a certain extent. To elaborate, the most apparent connection between both works is that Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin use Beck’s risk society as a point of departure to build their concept of risk regulation regimes (Hood, Rothstein, & Baldwin, 2000). Although this suggests that Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s work serves as a guide to maneuver
26 through the management of risks, this connection is not as clear cut as it appears. Thus, this section attempts to provide insight in how to link both ideas of risk society and risk regulation regimes.
It is evident that Beck focuses on risk within a risk society, while Hood, Rothstein, & Baldwin focus on risk regulation within a regime (Beck, 1992; Hood, Rothstein, & Baldwin, 2000). Within the realm of political science, regime and society are treated as individual entities due to their differences in boundary, involvement, and structure (Buzan, 1993). However, this research’s specific topic of American meat consumption and production’s effect on human health and the environment under the United States (U.S.) Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) System touches upon aspects of Beck’s characterization of risks within a risk society and Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s understanding of risk regulation in regime. To elaborate, the environmental and human health risks of meat consumption and production within the U.S. reflect risks within an industrial society, while the U.S. IFAP Model represents the regime of agriculture.
Therefore, as mentioned in section 2.3, Beck’s characterization of risk and Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s characterization of the regime content dimension can be used to conceptualize the subject of the U.S. IFAP System’s influence on meat consumption and production’s effect on human health and the environment. Thus, using both of these features, this research created the American Meat Risk Regime (AMRR) in order to thoroughly address the risks within the U.S. as a risk society and the content dimension within the U.S. agricultural regime.
2.5 Conceptualizing the American Meat Risk Regime
The main purpose of the American Meat Risk Regime (AMRR) is to reinforce the idea that both aspects of risk society and risk regulation regime can be combined to conceptualize the topic of American meat consumption and production’s effects on the environment and human health under the United States (U.S.) Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) Model. It should be noted that the AMRR will cater to the details and illustrations presented in the American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map (AMCPRM). This means that the AMRR is used to specifically characterize the human health and environmental consequences associated with the Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) practices listed in the AMCPRM.
In terms of Ulrich Beck’s definition of risk within a risk society, the characteristics of the individual’s decision over risk, scope of destruction, and calculation of destruction will be used to define the human health and environmental risks of biodiversity loss, certain cancers, climate
27 change, depletion of natural resources, earlier death, obesity, pollution, and type-II diabetes. This means that the aforementioned risks will be characterized against the backdrop of the industrialized practices of the U.S. IFAP Model, including: animal waste, antibiotics and feed additives, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land and water usage, and worker exposure to hazards, as illustrated in the AMCPRM.
Furthermore, as mentioned in section 2.2, the 4th characteristic used to define Beck’s characterization of risk is responsibility; however, he argues that within a risk society that responsibility is left ‘Open’ and referred to as ‘Organized Irresponsibility’ (Beck, 1992; Matten, 2004). Since the purpose of this research is to elaborate upon the responsibility of the U.S. IFAP Model’s influence on meat consumption and production’s effects on human health and the environment, this suggests that Beck’s idea of organized irresponsibility is irrelevant to the aim of this thesis.
Table 3: The American Meat Risk Regime (Beck, 1992; Hood, Rothstein, & Baldwin, 2000; Matten, 2004)
In order to address the issue of responsibility, the AMRR will use Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s control dimension of regime regulation to outline the levels of governance needed within the U.S. agricultural regime. The usage of their control dimension within the AMRR allows the assessments of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
28 (NEPA) of 1969 to be much more effective in terms of analyzing how these regulations are or are not providing the governance and regulation needed for the U.S. IFAP System.
Table 3 was created in order to illustrate the visualization of the conceptualization of the AMRR. The left side of the Table focuses on Beck’s characterization of ‘Risk’, while the right side of the Table focuses on Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin’s characterization of the ‘Content Dimension’ of risk regime regulations. To elaborate, the left side explains the characteristics that reinforce the argument that the human health and environmental risks of meat consumption and production under the U.S. IFAP Model are in fact ‘Industrial Side Effects’ of the American agricultural regime. As illustrated in Table 3, the criteria including: policy aggression, overall regulatory investment, non-state shares of resources, organization complexity, rule orientation, and regulatory integrity the size content feature are labeled as either low and medium. For the purpose of this research, low and medium refer to ineffective and less than average levels of governance; therefore, the content dimension section suggests that U.S. Federal agricultural regulations and policies have ineffective levels of governance. It should be noted that this hypothesis is confirmed in chapter 5.
29
3. Methodology
The main objective of this chapter is to thoroughly discuss all aspects of its methodology including the research tools used to create this thesis, such as databases, journals, and sources. Then, this chapter will justify this research’s application and usage of a single case study approach. In order to strengthen this reasoning the definition, method, and advantages of this thesis’s usage of a single case study approach will also be explained. Lastly, this chapter will conclude by briefly introducing this thesis’s case selection of the United States (U.S.)
3.1 The Tools Used to Construct this Thesis
This study is embedded in the work of research across a diverse range of topics relating to the field of Political Science. From issues relating to animal welfare, environmental preservation, public health crises, risk governance, and risk theory, it is evident that this thesis focuses on the interconnected links between these subjects. Thus, this thesis’s approach to understanding the United States (U.S.) Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) System’s influence on meat consumption and production’s effects on human health and environmental risks is comprised of the sources of multiple perspectives.
For example, information was drawn from both American and European databases in order to emphasize the growing awareness of environmental and human health risks associated with meat consumption and production across the Western world. The usage of European sources allowed me to execute a ‘Call to Action’ for addressing the ‘Universal’ concern of risks relating to meat consumption and production practices. However, when it came to finding reliable statistics about the human health and environmental concerns relating to meat consumption and production, this study solely utilized American organizations. To elaborate, this thesis used statistic provided by the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American Dietetic Association (ADA), and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As mentioned in chapter 2, the core of this research’s theoretical framework is based off of Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society and Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin’s The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation. These works were chosen due to their complimentary relationship, where Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin offer a solution for risks as understood by Beck. Additionally, this thesis used article reviews of both books in order to understand the differing critiques and interpretations of their works.
30 In terms of gathering information about the U.S.’s meat industry, multiple American sources were used, such as the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Both sources provided accurate data statistics, facts, and information relating to meat consumption and production in the U.S. Furthermore, the USDA was the main source to analyze the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 since they are both under their governance. Information regarding the U.S. IFAP Model were based off of sources that provided critiques concerning its adverse effects on human health and the environment. For example, the Pew Commission on IFAP reports from 2008 were extremely useful in terms of providing evidence that addressed the severity of these consequences.
Due to the diverse nature of the topic of this thesis, it is apparent that the sources used represent a variety of sectors. To elaborate, journals of environmental health perspectives, risk governance, public health, and sustainability were used to craft this thesis, such as the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Current Environmental Reports, Ecological Indicators, Meat Science, and the Journal of Risk and Insurance. The main databases which used consists of Elsevier, JSTOR, and Wiley Online. In essence, this research used a balanced combination of academic articles, books, government sources, medical journals, and policy reviews to prove its main argument.
3.2 Definition and Method of a ‘Single Case Study’ Approach Used in this Thesis
A case study is defined as, “An intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units”. Within this definition, the term, ‘Unit’ refers to a spatially bound phenomenon, such as a nation state, political part, of revolution. The unit selection in this research is the United States (U.S.), specifically its Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) System. Against this definitional backdrop, case studies can be used in a combination with a variety of methods. (Gerring, 2004).
To elaborate, case studies are primarily case-centered, theory-centered, or detail-centered Rohlfing, 2012). This means that case study approaches can focus on the case itself, the theories surrounding the case, of the general and specific details of the case (Gerring, 2004, Rohlfing, 2012; Van Hooren, 2017). Thus, this thesis focuses on the case selection of the U.S. IFAP Model and its general and specific characteristics in order to contribute to the broader understanding of meat
31 consumption and production’s effects on human health and the environment, as provoked by IFAP practices.
3.3 Why a Single Case Study Approach
The main reason behind this thesis’s usage of a ‘Single Case Study’ approach is its ability to achieve a two-fold task: focusing on a single unit, while contribution information to a broader topic. For example, this is illustrated in this research’s examination of the United States (U.S.) Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) Model’s impact on meat consumption and production’s effect on human health and the environment. Furthermore, the case selection of the U.S. surpasses the ‘Normal Study’ approach since this thesis will produce conclusions that can be applied to other cases and studies relating to IFAP practices’ effects on human health and the environment. Thus, the ability to study a single unit in great detail and depth is one of the best characteristics of this thesis’s methodological approach.
3.4 Advantages and Benefits to the Single Case Study Approach
Case studies are best understood as the ‘Ideal’ type of methodological approach as opposed to the ‘Hard and Fast Rules’ type of methodological approach due to its advantages and benefits.
The first advantage of a single case study approach is the level of depth that its analyses offer. To elaborate, depth refers to the completeness, richness, and wholeness of the details that support a study’s argument and evidence. (Gerring, 2004). This level of depth produces a rich understanding of case specific developments, suggesting that researchers who conduct single case studies are experts of their unit of analysis. To elaborate, they are extremely familiar with the context of their study, such as actors, history, and policies. This is advantageous because knowing more information about less researched topics produces work that fill in potential gaps in literature. (Van Hooren, 2017).
Another benefit to using single case study approaches is that they are more likely to produce research that is comparable and compatible to other current cases. This is important because cases from contrasting units of analyses can produce irrelevant and wrong ‘Heroic Assumptions’ as opposed to clear conclusions about the similarities of causal relationships across studies. (Gerring, 2004).
32 Moreover, case studies also provide an advantage for the role of theory. To elaborate, the information and knowledge discovered within a case study can challenge a current theory’s definition, refine a theory’s definition, and generate new hypotheses. This suggests that the conclusions and findings from case studies can either contribute new additions or refine details to the case’s current respective field. (Van Hooren, 2017)
3.5 Case Selection: The United States
It has been argued that when choosing a case selection, “Researchers begin their inquiry with a theory in search of a test or a case in search of a theory for which it is a good test” (George & Bennet, 2005). This reasoning is reflected in this thesis’s case selection of the United States (U.S.) due to its primary research objective. To elaborate, this study aims to examine whether or not U.S. Federal agricultural regulations and policies provoke the human health and environmental consequences of meat consumption and production within the American IFAP Model. Since the U.S. IFAP System is at the center of critiques relating to IFAP practices’ severe consequences for human health and the environment, it is evident that the U.S. agricultural regime needs stronger risk regulation (Rossi & Garner, 2009). Thus, the U.S. was chosen for this specific reason. It should be noted that this research could not conduct interviews due to the difficulties of inaccessibility and time zone differences between the Netherlands and the U.S.
33
4. Revisiting the American Meat Consumption and
Production Risk Map
The main objective of this chapter is to elaborate upon this research’s case selection of the United States (U.S.), specifically, its Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) Model, by revisiting the American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map (AMCPRM).
Figure 4: The American Meat Consumption and Production Risk Map
In order to set up a basis for understanding the U.S. IFAP System, this chapter will first introduce a description of the current U.S. meat industry. Although there is not an explicit
34 definition of what constitutes an IFAP Model, there are ‘Signature’ characteristics that are associated with IFAP related facilities and plantations (Rossi & Garner, 2009). The aim of this chapter is to elaborate upon these features including: animal waste, antibiotic and feed additives, climate change, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), natural resource depletion, and worker health safety, as illustrated in the AMCPRM. By doing this, this chapter explains how the aforementioned IFAP practices influence meat consumption and production’s effect on human health and the environment.
4.1 Description of the United States Meat Industry: The Industrial Farm Animal Production Model
The United States (U.S.) remains one of the global agricultural industry’s largest consumer and producer countries (USDA ERS, 2017). With the workforce of over 6,000 Federally inspected processing and producing industries and plantations, the U.S. meat agricultural sector continues to produce overwhelming amounts of animal products, such as 93 billion pounds in 2012 (NAMI, 2015). These overwhelming numbers are credited to the U.S. agricultural sector’s transformation. Ever since the U.S. meat industry transitioned from a system of small family operated farms to large scale industrialized facilities, animal product production in the U.S. has intensified. This transformation ushered in the Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) Model. (Rossi & Garner, 2014).
The IFAP approach is primary controlled by corporate ownership, economic consolidation, and vertical integration (Rollin, 2001). Within the IFAP System, there are 5 definitive components of industrialization including: ‘efficiency as a production mandate, large scale production, reliance of managerial as opposed to artisanal expertise, specialized machinery, and a standardization of processes and products (Fitzgerald, 2003). These industrial features suggest that IFAP industries prioritize the goal of achieving the largest amount of animal product production at the lowest cost and shortest amount of time possible (Foer, 2009, Jones, 2003; Singer, 2002). Although this objective ensures economic growth, there are a number of issues that are completely disregarded by the level of industrialization within IFAP Systems, specifically human health risks and environmental degradation (Rossi & Garner, 2014). To elaborate, IFAP is marked by a number of ‘Intensified’ practices that raise concerns of animal welfare. The issue of animal welfare is central
