Smart Choices for U.S. Food Production

The document examines the high social, economic, and environmental costs of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the U.S., contrasting them with 'smart pasture operations' (SPOs) and other mid-size alternatives. It highlights how federal subsidies for grain and waste management have artificially supported CAFOs while externalizing costs such as water pollution, antibiotic resistance, and diminished rural property values. The Union of Concerned Scientists advocates for policy shifts, including the elimination of CAFO waste subsidies and stricter enforcement of the Clean Water Act and antitrust laws, to promote a more sustainable food system.

• Confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) create significant environmental damage, including the contamination of drinking water in rural areas and the creation of oxygen-depleted 'dead zones' in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay.
• The U.S. government has provided substantial indirect financial support to CAFOs through grain subsidies, totaling nearly $4 billion annually between 1997 and 2005.
• CAFOs contribute to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, such as MRSA and Salmonella, because approximately 70 percent of U.S. antibiotics are administered to food animals to promote growth and prevent disease in crowded conditions.
• The economic burden of CAFOs is shifted to the public; for instance, the estimated cost to clean up contaminated soil under all U.S. hog and dairy CAFOs is nearly $4.1 billion, and property values near these operations have fallen by approximately $26 billion.
• Smart pasture operations (SPOs) and mid-size alternatives are presented as viable, efficient replacements for CAFOs, with some mid-size operations being as cost-effective as large hog CAFOs while producing higher profits per cow in the dairy sector.
• The Union of Concerned Scientists recommends several policy changes to dismantle the CAFO system, including eliminating EQIP waste-management subsidies for CAFOs, enforcing the Clean Water Act, and revising slaughterhouse regulations to support smaller processors.

APA

Union of Concerned Scientists (2008). Smart Choices for U.S. Food Production. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/cafo_issue-briefing-low-res.pdf

Chicago

Union of Concerned Scientists. Smart Choices for U.S. Food Production. 2008. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/cafo_issue-briefing-low-res.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=Smart Choices for U.S. Food Production |date=September 2008 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/cafo_issue-briefing-low-res.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{unionofconcernedscientists2008smart, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{Smart Choices for U.S. Food Production}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2008}, month = sep, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/cafo_issue-briefing-low-res.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }