Animal Agriculture Costs More In Health Damage Than It Contributes To The Economy

The Forbes article "Animal Agriculture Costs More in Health Damage Than It Contributes to the Economy" discusses a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which reveals that U.S. farms, particularly those involved in animal agriculture, cause more economic harm through health and environmental damage than the economic value they generate.

Key Points:

1. Economic Impact of Pollution:

   • The study compares the economic value added by 20 different economic sectors with the cost of premature deaths caused by particulate air pollution. Animal agriculture is identified as the worst performer in this regard.

   • Farms, particularly those involved in animal production, have a gross economic damage (GED) to value added (VA) ratio greater than one, indicating that the harm they cause exceeds their economic benefits. Specifically, the GED/VA ratio for animal production is 2.0, with poultry being the worst offender with a ratio ranging from 3 to 7.

2. Health Costs:

   • The study highlights that particulate pollution, including PM 2.5, is responsible for 90% of the 100,000 annual premature deaths in the U.S. from air pollution. Poultry farming contributes significantly to this pollution by emitting particulate matter and ammonia, which combine with other pollutants to form deadly PM 2.5.

   • The study does not include other health costs associated with consuming animal products or the economic impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, suggesting that the actual costs of animal agriculture are even higher.

3. Comparison with Other Sectors:

   • Crop production has a GED/VA ratio of 0.72, indicating that its economic value exceeds the damage it causes. In contrast, animal agriculture's ratio is significantly higher, showing a greater economic harm.

   • Historically, utilities had a similar issue but improved their ratios by reducing pollution, mainly through the closure of coal-burning power plants. The article implies that similar efforts are needed in the agricultural sector.

4. Policy Implications:

   • The findings suggest a need for policymakers to address emissions from agriculture and transportation, particularly targeting emissions reductions in these sectors. The persistence of high pollution levels in agriculture points to a necessity for more serious regulatory attention.

5. Expert Commentary:

   • Economist Juan Moreno-Cruz notes in a commentary within the same PNAS issue that agriculture remains one of the most polluting industries per dollar in the U.S.

   • Co-author Inês M.L. Azevedo from Stanford University emphasizes the need to rethink agricultural practices to reduce their harmful impact.

Conclusion:

The study presented in the article underscores the urgent need to address the health and environmental damages caused by animal agriculture. The significant economic harm from particulate pollution necessitates targeted policy interventions to mitigate these impacts, potentially drawing lessons from how other sectors, like utilities, have managed to reduce their pollution levels.

Read the full article on Forbes.com