Enviropigs to the Rescue?

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/)

(http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/enviropig-touted-for-eco-friendly-excrement/19423497)

Recent articles in the National Geographic Daily News and AOL News discuss government-run Environment Canada’s approval for limited production of pigs genetically engineered to excrete less phosphorus. Upon first thought, the new technology sounds admirable for its potential to limit phosphorus in runoff and thereby slow eutrophication. On second consideration, however, the possibility poses some problems. Like genetic engineering to create pain-free livestock, genetic engineering of pigs to excrete less phosphorus is akin to medicating the symptoms without treating the fundamental problem. The entire premise of industrial livestock production is problematic and unsustainable. Genetically engineering pigs condones, even perpetuates, an inherently flawed and unsustainable system, thereby making it difficult for the development and implementation of more creative and sustainable solutions.

Researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario recognized that pig farms contribute to a significant proportion of eutrophication (a process by which excess nutrients create algal blooms in water sources, causing them to become anoxic dead zones). To mitigate this problem, they have developed a pig – the “Enviropig” – that better digests plant phosphorus. Industrial pig farmers primarily feed their pigs corn (in the U.S.) and cereal grains (in Canada). Unmodified pigs need phosphorus, but are unable to break it down from these foods. To handle this problem, many farmers add the enzyme phytase to their feed. The University of Guelph program has modified pigs to produce phytase, which is secreted with saliva. As the saliva mixes with the feed, the enzyme breaks down the indigestible phytate. The gene added to produce this enzyme comes from the E. coli genome paired with a mouse DNA promoter. Modified pigs are able to transmit the new gene to their offspring. Because these animals can digest grain phosphorus, farmers will not need to supplement feed and pig manure will contain less phosphorus. See the University of Guelph “Enviropig” website (where the above picture came from) for more information: http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/.

The National Geographic Daily News article claims that the new technology will also cut costs to famers by ending the need for supplementing feed and helping them better meet U.S. “zero discharge” rules which prohibit nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from livestock facilities. Farmers currently attempt to comply with these rules by collecting waste in lagoons until it can be used as fertilizer.

What most disturbs me about the National Geographic article is its entirely positive framing of the pig development. First of all, I’m not quite sure what the author was implying with her discussion of the pig’s impact on farmers’ meeting the “zero discharge” rule. If the pigs decrease the amount of phosphorus runoff, that’s great for the water systems, but as far as I can tell some will still enter runoff (and what about nitrogen?). It seems to me that pig farmers should still have to hold waste in lagoons as the discharge will never fall to zero.

Phosphorus is not the sole problem with industrial pig farming. In his article for AOL, Thier quotes Tom Philpott, Grist.org’s food editor, as saying, “It’s not just the phosphorous in industrial pig s---t that causes trouble downstream. It's also full of nitrogen, which feeds dead zones and puts nitrates in folks' drinking water. Indeed, waste from factory pig farms is essentially an industrial pollutant: It contains ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide and heavy metals." Livestock – especially those fed diets that do not match the diets they have evolved for, as is the case at most, if not all, industrial operations – contribute significant amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Industrial agriculture is a major culprit in human-induced climate change, and as such, a culprit in shortening the lifespan of life itself. Shouldn’t we consider the system as a whole rather than attempting to fix each problem individually? There’s a chance that any change will have negative consequences, whether they be increased production of other pollutants or possible unstudied health impacts. We are not constrained to the industrial food system and CAFO-style production. We can produce livestock for consumption without feeding them grains they aren’t meant to eat and growing them in dense herds on small areas. Of course, we cannot grow nearly as many pigs free range as we can industrially, a fact that brings me to a discussion of values.

Most Americans have become accustomed to eating meat whenever they desire it. Any legislation that decreases meat availability or increases cost, then, may pose an affront to their freedom of choice. Few legislators would support any bill likely to provoke such outrage – they are trying to stay in office.

At the same time, many Americans are drawn to the idea of the American wilderness as a symbol of purity, beauty and strength. Show them pictures of fish kills from eutrophication due to CAFO production, and they’re likely to want to stop the pollution.

Combine this desire for meat anytime, anywhere, with this emotional response to the “natural” world and you’ve got the reasons for the “Enviropig.” It’s an easy “solution” that doesn’t compromise freedom of choice – and even offers potential savings to farmers. Many of the proponents of the “Enviropig” call upon the value of a healthy economy and insinuate better standard of living for the farmers. As Paul Sundberg, vice president of the U.S. National Pork Board, told National Geographic, "Pork producers are in favor of any technologies that can increase their competitiveness." What could be better than technology that lets us continue living as we have while bettering the environment?

But the “Enviropig” does not even begin to tackle the whole of the environmental and social problems created by the pork industry. Maybe it’s a little “greener” – but not much. I worry that the “Enviropig” will create a sense of complacency, that after we’ve made one facet a little greener we can continue with business as usual. We see this all the time; the media gets excited about some environmental issue (say the Exxon Valdez spill, maybe even the current spill) and covers it intently for a while. Once the oil is cleaned up a little and there are fewer dead birds to take pictures of, the media quiets and the general public settles back into business as usual, believing that “clean up” is enough.

The “Enviropig” framing reminds me of the suggestions in the leaked Luntz Research Company memo in its attempts to make something inherently unsustainable appear “green.” The memo states “facts only become relevant when the public is receptive and willing to listen to them.” Framing always elevates certain aspects of an issue over another, but I worry that the media coverage of the research may be overlooking the facts on a system-wide level to focus on those at the level of a singular detail. When the public is not made aware of the system-wide effects of a certain issue (here, pork farming), they cannot make informed decisions (which, I would argue, is essentially the goal of framing Luntz style).

As I mentioned previously, other ways to solve the problems of the industrial pork (and agriculture in general) industry exist. Consumers can make a difference here. If we all choose to eat locally raised, more sustainable pork (meat)– whether by raising our own, endorsing social entrepreneurship, or creating a subsidized community food system so that everyone can afford it – we will send a message to the industry that we support sustainable practices. The more people who do this, the more emphatic the message will be. A similar situation occurred with the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (RBGH). Consumers showed their discomfort at the use of the hormone, and many companies stopped using it on their cows. As I said earlier, legislators are unlikely to sign onto agrarian reform bills they fear will be overly contentious and without enough support. I encourage everyone to speak to their representatives about the troubles with industrial agriculture. If enough people press legislators, we may have a shot at working to subsidize more sustainable, smaller-scale operations over the polluting industry.

The environmental repercussions of pork production extend far beyond phosphorus in runoff. Pork production plays a significant part in climate change – which is a problem way bigger than anything the “Enviropig” can handle. Let’s look for solutions outside of the industrial agriculture paradigm.

Works Cited:

Luntz, Frank. The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America.