The “Trap” Of Animal Agriculture
Animal agriculture sits on a continuum, with intensive systems on one end and extensive systems (where animals are kept outside in comparatively larger spaces) on the other. As the global population continues to grow and food demands increase, the author of this paper argues that animal agriculture becomes a trap: intensifying production may help meet the demand, but it also risks spreading zoonotic diseases.
In this review, the author discusses the interplay of animal agriculture, environmental sustainability, and zoonotic illnesses in more detail. Then they provide three recommendations to feed the global population without threatening the environment and human health.
Because it takes up greater land area per calorie produced, extensive animal agriculture requires an unsustainable amount of land. As a result, the author argues that relying on extensive agriculture to support the global population would lead to severe environmental issues such as deforestation. For example, they note that transitioning the U.S. cow farming industry from feedlots to intensive grazing would require up to 270% more land use.
Some environmental advocates say that intensive animal agriculture (where animals are kept in small spaces and packed closely together) is the solution, as it requires less land. However, research suggests that the cheaper costs of factory-farmed meat increases meat demand overall, which can drive deforestation in the long term. Furthermore, the author points out that while intensive systems may be better for the environment in the short term, they come at the expense of increased disease risk.
Because intensively-farmed animals are packed together and live close to their bodily waste, diseases spread more quickly. This is often combatted using antibiotics, which leads to a higher risk of antibiotic-resistant diseases. In other words, intensive agriculture is a high-risk environment for breeding a new pandemic.
The author suggests that this leaves a “paradox for intensification” where animal farming is stuck between immediate environmental destruction on one hand, and future pandemics on the other. It is a lose-lose situation.
The author notes two commonly-suggested solutions to this problem. The first, shifting consumption from cows to chickens or pigs, will lower the environmental costs of farming (as chickens and pigs require less land) but will create a further risk of zoonotic disease. This is because more chickens and pigs are needed to produce the meat of one cow, meaning more animals are packed together. Also, chickens and pigs typically require more antibiotics.
The second proposed solution is shifting to “sustainable intensification,” a middle ground between extensive and intensive systems that aims to limit the risk of diseases. However, the author claims that this is only possible in a select number of less developed countries; in countries such as the U.S., it would lead to further land use, which is not possible. Similarly, there is only so much food that semi-intensive systems can produce, so it needs to be combined with other methods.
Using existing literature as evidence, the researcher puts forward what they believe to be a good solution, as long as it’s enacted with international cooperation:
- Selectively “semi-intensifying” animal agriculture in developing regions, and in such a way as to limit zoonotic disease spread where possible.
- Enhancing forest conservation policies across the world, with local communities as key stakeholders. This would limit the expansion of farming into natural landscapes.
- Shifting away from animal-based diets, because plant-based agriculture is less of a threat in terms of zoonotic diseases and land use.
This is an important piece of research for advocates to understand. The zoonotic disease trap closes the door on intensive agriculture as a reasonable solution to feed the world. Animal advocates can push the author’s recommendations forward by lobbying the government to enact policies in favor of plant-based diets and environmental conservation. They can also work to increase demand for plant-based food, for example by changing social norms and encouraging behavioral changes.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.add6681