The Animal Doctor

DEAR READERS: This is Part 2 of a planned three-part series on the harms of the cattle industry.

The contributions of the U.S. beef industry to the climate crisis have been well documented, as well as the health risks of high beef consumption. Yet the cattle industry continues to be heavily subsidized with public funds, the termination of which many analysts are now calling for. (See the study “Public policies and vested interests preserve the animal farming status quo at the expense of animal product analogs” by Simona Vallone and Eric Lambin, published in One Earth, August 2023.)

According to a fact sheet from the Humane Farming Association (HFA):

“The Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) is like an insurance policy for livestock producers where the taxpayer pays the premium rather than the livestock producer. When animals die in harsh weather, the producer files a claim with the USDA. Despite the fact that the producer provided no protection from inclement weather and paid no premium to insure the animals, he or she collects compensation for the dead animals. ...

"Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that between 2013 and 2017, LIP issued payments of $198,877,658 to farmers and ranchers for animal deaths due primarily to weather-related issues. Since that time, says USASpending.gov, another $157,283,183 was paid to producers under LIP. LIP benefits represent misuse of taxpayer dollars and government waste at its most flagrant. ...

"Compensating producers for dead livestock without ever requiring adequate shelter, shade, or other safeguards is actually a disincentive to farmers and ranchers to take the necessary steps to provide their animals with protections from inclement weather.” (To read the full document, visit HFA-LIP-fact-sheet.pdf.)

To top this off, a vast tonnage of discarded animal parts unfit for human consumption -- notably the remains designated “4-D” from dead, dying, debilitated and/or diseased animals at the processing plants -- is profitably recycled into pig and poultry feed and pet foods.

This subsidization results in artificially low prices for beef and other animal products. According to one review from the American Institute for Economic Research, "The United States federal government spends $38 billion every year subsidizing the meat and dairy industries. Research from 2015 shows this subsidization reduces the price of Big Macs from $13 to $5, and the price of a pound of hamburger meat from $30 to the $5 we see today." (See aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger.)

Our historical consumption of meat does not justify the present quantity and frequency of same. Raising an animal for consumption, or tracking and killing one to eat, are practices that are generations removed from most people in the world. Rather, most people have others kill and dismember the animals they will eventually eat. This is done in slaughtering facilities where there is much animal terror and mishandling, and, especially in the U.S., unsafe conditions for workers, many of whom are immigrants. (See the 2006 book “Slaughterhouse, The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry” by Gail Eisnitz.)

U.K. UNIVERSITIES URGED TO GO VEGAN

Hundreds of academics, politicians and health care and veterinary professionals have signed an open letter urging U.K. universities to switch to 100% plant-based meals. The full letter is available at bit.ly/3Rk9nvE.

I wish all such institutions in the U.S. would start a similar campaign to help shrink our carbon footprint, improve our health and reduce the suffering of billions of animals destined for human consumption.

DEAR DR. FOX: I noticed that one of your recent columns referenced an outdated stat -- specifically, that the global plant-based meat market was predicted to grow to $15.8 billion by 2028. Based on our most recent data, this figure has been updated, and the global plant-based meat market is now expected to reach $18.41 billion by 2030.

For your reference, and to verify the new statistics, please visit our page: worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/how-many-vegans-are-in-the-world. -- Patricia Gomez, World Animal Foundation

DEAR P.G.: I appreciate you sending this update. It is indeed evident that more plant-based dog and cat foods will soon be on the market, leading to documented benefits for these animals and the planet.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: President Joe Biden has vetoed two Republican-drafted bills that would have reversed federal protections for the lesser prairie chicken and the northern long-eared bat under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat loss to fossil fuel development, agriculture, roads and power lines threatens the lesser prairie chicken, which is known for its elaborate mating rituals. White-nose syndrome (a fungal disease), wind turbines and indiscriminate logging by the timber industry all threaten the long-eared bat’s survival. (Full story: The Associated Press, Sept. 27)

These animals play vital roles in maintaining the health of ecosystems in which they evolved for millions of years before our incursion and destruction. Prairie chickens consume grasshoppers and probably help prevent them from morphing into crop-devastating locust swarms. The northern long-eared bat devours many species of insects and helps protect trees from invasive beetles.

"Bats are critical to healthy, functioning ecosystems and contribute at least $3 billion annually to the United States agriculture economy through pest control and pollination," Biden said in a veto statement.

From a One Health perspective, it is enlightened self-interest to protect all native species, whether plant or animal. This perspective links ecological and environmental health with public health, and calls on us to better constrain our destructive, consumptive urges.

The black-footed ferrets, like some species of the burrowing owl and the swift fox, have almost been pushed into extinction. But the relentlessly persecuted “prairie wolf” -- the coyote -- has been able to survive and is now colonizing many residential communities across the country, creating wildlife-human conflicts. Organizations such as Project Coyote are seeking to solve these conflicts with sound science and compassion.

The less we interfere with wildlife, the better for all.

ABALONE: A SEAFOOD DELICACY TO AVOID

Many people enjoy abalone, a mollusk harvested by the California fishing industry. But this industry wanted the sea otter taken off the endangered species list because otters consume abalone, clams and sea urchins, and are therefore seen as "competition" by the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara and the California Sea Urchin Commission.

Thankfully, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected these groups' petition to delist the sea otter. Otters are already at risk from warming and acidifying waters, diseases such as toxoplasmosis, predation by sharks and toxic algal blooms caused by pollution. (Full story: fws.gov, Sept. 19)

This is yet another instance of vested human interests seeking to override the rights and interests of wildlife, much like ignorant deer hunters who regard wolves as competitors and want them exterminated, or “managed,” at barely viable population numbers.

Every wild animal species provides vital ecological services. Sea otters, in consuming sea urchins, help prevent sea urchins from decimating the kelp forests that provide essential habitats for many fish.

So think twice about consuming abalone -- and, in my opinion, any seafoods -- because of global overharvesting and the reality of declining biodiversity in ocean ecosystems.

A NOTE FOR THE DAIRY INDUSTRY AND ICE CREAM PARLOR

Overtreatment of dairy cows with mild or moderate mastitis is common, and could potentially contribute to drug resistance, according to a study led by researchers at Michigan State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. Many dairy farmers continue treatment beyond the recommended duration based on the misconception that abnormal milk appearance is an indication of infection. However, previous research has shown that abnormal milk appearance is a sign of inflammation, not necessarily of infection. (Full story: Food Safety Magazine, Sept. 27)

GOOD MOVE FROM RINGLING BROS. CIRCUS

After a hiatus of several years, the Ringling Bros. Circus is returning, but it will no longer include animal acts of any kind. For details, see: onegreenplanet.org/animals/ringling-circus-returns-sans-animal-acts.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: This is Part 1 of a planned three-part series on this issue.

The continuing assaults by the cattle industry on wildlands, biodiversity, Indigenous peoples and wildlife, as well as the industry’s contributions to climate change and the risks it poses to consumers and public health, call for full accountability and change.

U.S. cattle ranchers have waged war on wolves and other predators for centuries, which ultimately disrupts the valuable ecological services these predators play in keeping deer and elk herds -- as well as forests -- healthy. All of this ultimately affects public health. (See drfoxonehealth.com/post/wolves-and-human-well-being-ecological-public-health-concerns.)

Worse, ranchers are often assisted in their wolf-killing efforts by government agencies. A disturbing article by Christopher Ingraham, published in August in the Minnesota Reformer, underscores the perpetuation of this insanity. The story is entitled, “USDA kills hundreds of Minnesota wolves to protect ranchers’ profits.”

Ingraham writes: “In 2022, there were 174 documented wolf deaths in Minnesota, according to the latest state Department of Natural Resources data. Of those, 142 were killed by a relatively obscure arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture called the Wildlife Services division. ...

“USDA officers kill more wolves in Minnesota than in all other states combined, according to the program’s annual reports. That work is effectively a government handout to ranchers, who receive publicly funded protection for their privately held livestock. The ranchers also receive cash compensation from state taxpayers for their lost cattle, which in 2022 totaled $100,000 for 78 wolf predation claims, or an average of about $1,300 per claim.

“While individual ranchers can experience significant losses if wolves repeatedly target their cows, the overall impact on the state’s cattle population is negligible. There are about 2.2 million cows in the state, according to USDA data. The five or six dozen documented and verified wolf kills in a given year amount to a few thousandths of 1% of the total population.

“But the USDA’s actions in response inflict a steep toll upon Minnesota’s wolves. The 142 kills amount to fully 5% of the state’s estimated wolf population.”

As confirmed by objective research on the subject, such lethal “wolf control” practices do more harm than good -- and can actually increase livestock losses! A 2014 study found that livestock mortality increased as wolves were killed, possibly because the killings spurred surviving wolves to mate more often.

From the study’s abstract: “The odds of livestock depredations increased 4% for sheep and 5% to 6% for cattle with increased wolf control -- up until wolf mortality exceeded the mean intrinsic growth rate of wolves at 25%. ... Lethal control of individual depredating wolves may sometimes be necessary to stop depredations in the near term, but we recommend that nonlethal alternatives also be considered.” (Study: R.B. Wielgus and K.A. Peebles: “Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations,” PLOS One, December 2014)

Many Americans still connect cattle ranching with the enchanting mythology of the Old West frontier, with its cowboys and its “manifest destiny.” But the much-romanticized cowboys, in reality, committed genocide and ecocide, exterminating Indigenous peoples and animals alike. They almost annihilated the bison to fatten the coffers of the cattle barons.

Similarly, the now-critical depletion of aquifers, the degradation of public “range” lands by cattle, the destruction of prairie grasslands and the draining of wetlands to raise feed for the livestock industry collectively amount to ecocide. This is compounded by pollution to the air, groundwater and drinking water from livestock fecal waste. The highly publicized climate-change contributions from livestock in the form of methane are but the tip of the iceberg -- or the animal waste-pile -- created by the global livestock industry and its hide-tanning subsidiaries.

According to one analysis, “About 85% of public lands in the western USA are grazed by domestic livestock, and they influence climate change in three profound ways: 1. They are significant sources of greenhouse gases through enteric fermentation and manure deposition; 2. They defoliate native plants, trample vegetation and soils, and accelerate the spread of exotic species, resulting in a shift in landscape function from carbon sinks to sources of greenhouse gases; and 3. They exacerbate the effects of climate change on ecosystems by creating warmer and drier conditions.” (Study: J.B. Kauffman et al, “Livestock Use on Public Lands in the Western USA Exacerbates Climate Change: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation,” Environmental Management, April 2022)

When purchasing beef at the local store, consider the full ethical and environmental cost -- to which we should add the expenses of monitoring, containing, preventing and treating the many diseases cattle can suffer. Some of these diseases can infect us and/or wildlife. (Study: R.S. Miller et al, “Diseases at the livestock-wildlife interface: status, challenges, and opportunities in the United States,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, June 2013)

As the human population increases, along with livestock numbers and demand for meat, there will be predictable increases in diseases harbored by cattle and other farmed animals -- and even more zoonotic diseases challenging the human populace.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)