The Impact of Agricultural Pollution

USDA has instituted tight controls over information showing the negative consequences of agricultural practices, such as preventing a senior scientist from speaking about the potential adverse consequences of hog farming.

As the potential impact of agricultural pollution has become more widely recognized, agricultural interests have expressed concern about the potential cost of regulation.[1] In testimony before Congress, USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman promised that her Department would give farmers “the appropriate tools to continue to make the best decisions” on how to protect the environment.[2] However, USDA has instituted tight controls over the publication of information tending to show negative consequences of agricultural practices, attempted to suppress relevant research, and has prevented a senior scientist from speaking about potential adverse environmental consequences from hog farming.

In February 2002, USDA officials told top scientists in the Department’s Agricultural Research Service to seek prior approval on all manuscripts pertaining to “sensitive issues.” According to a Department memo, these issues included:

Agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences, e.g., global climate change; contamination of water by hazardous materials (nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens); animal feeding operations or crop production practices that negatively impact soil, water, or air quality. [3]

USDA has used this authority to withhold approval to study important issues. The Des Moines Register reported that USDA officials told microbiologist Dr. James Zahn not to publish the results of his study finding antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the air near hog confinements in Iowa and Missouri.[4] He was also not allowed to present his findings at public or private meetings in the spring of 2002, including one at a meeting of the Board of Health in Adair County, Iowa. According to the Des Moines Register:

Zahn later found a fax trail showing that information about his planned appearance . . . first passed from an environmental advocacy group to a Des Moines TV station, then to the Iowa Pork Producers Association office. Someone there sent the fax to the National Pork Producers Council in Zahn’s building. A pork council worker contacted Zahn’s boss . . . to question the appearance, Zahn said. [His boss] then called his superiors in Peoria, who decided Zahn could not speak at the meeting.[5]

Dr. Zahn’s supervisor at USDA attempted to justify these denials on the grounds that the studies dealt with human health and therefore fell outside his unit’s mission.[6] This claim, however, was groundless. The unit’s web site states: “The mission of the Swine Odor and Manure Management Research Unit is to solve critical problems in the swine production industry that impact production efficiency, environmental quality, and human health.”[7]

[1] Iowa’s Tough Stand against Runoff from Agriculture Is Gaining Support; Environment: There Is Growing Recognition That the Fields That Roll across the Heartland Can Create as Much Pollution as a Factory Belching Fumes, Los Angeles Times (Mar. 19, 2002).

[2] USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Agriculture, House Appropriations Committee (Feb. 13, 2002).

[3] USDA, List of Sensitive issues for ARS Manuscript Review and Approval by National Program Staff — February 2002 (revised) (Feb. 2002).

[4] Ag Scientists Feel the Heat, Des Moines Register (Dec. 1, 2002).

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] USDA Agricultural Research Service, Swine Odor and Manure Management Research Unit (online at http://www.nsric.ars.usda.gov/) (emphasis added).