Factory farming a greater pandemic risk than consumption of exotic animals
- Because factory farmed animals are reared in an enclosed space, where their freedom of movement is severely restricted, their resistance to disease plummets
- This farming practice is also increasing drug resistance in humans
However, humanity seems to have problems learning from historical facts. Those who have warned against the risks of a pandemic during the last 10 years have been ignored as modern-day Cassandras.
The purpose of factory farming is to make farming more efficient: instead of going to the animals to feed them and catch them for slaughter, they are brought all together in one place. But because factory farming puts the animals in an enclosed space, often where their freedom of movement is severely restricted, their resistance to disease plummets and their susceptibility to viral or bacterial contagion shoots up.
This is amplified by the genetic uniformity of the animals, since farmers favour the same growth patterns and sizes. And thus, if one animal gets ill, they all get ill. International transport increase the risk of contagion further.
Besides the risk of pandemics, consuming meat, dairy and eggs tends to clutter the arteries of those consuming them and are also associated with increased risk of some types of cancer and type 2 diabetes.
Despite some efficiency gains by factory farming, the production of meat remains highly inefficient compared to plant-based and cell-cultured food. About 7kg of grain is needed to produce 1kg of beef in the US. In addition, factory farming produces more greenhouse gases than all modes of transport combined in the European Union. In the most animal-dense country in the world, the Netherlands, this had led to the call by the second-largest political party D66, to halve the livestock.
The “veil of ignorance” proposed by the American moral philosopher John Rawls has been insufficiently applied around the world. This is a thought experiment in which you have to make laws for society, but you do not know in what form you will return to that society. Perhaps you will return as an animal, and therefore should consider more humane laws with regard to animals.
This innovative food entails no risk of contagion from animals or danger of antimicrobial resistance, is healthier for consumers, is produced with fewer greenhouse gas emissions and is cruelty-free.
Seafood, chicken products next for plant-based food entrepreneurs
Silicon Valley investors have likened plant-based and cell-cultured food to “software” and animal-based food to “hardware”, since the first is open to innovation and the latter is much more fixed.
Animal-based food producers in the EU and US have insisted on “truth in labelling” measures to exclude innovative foods from using animal-based food names, even though empirical research demonstrates that few consumers are confused about the ingredients if they read “plant-based beef burger” on a label.
In 2020, the European Parliament approved an amendment to expand on a 2017 Court of Justice ruling than banned the use of dairy-related words such as “milk” with regard to, for example, “oat milk”, even though the amendment conflicts with the policy goals in the Farm to Fork Strategy to transition to a system of health, sustainability, clear information and the implied goal of ethical food production. While the amendment was withdrawn in May, the 2017 court ruling still stands.
This pushback is a rearguard action by the animal-based producers, many of whom have already hedged their bets and have started to invest in innovative food as well.
Dr Danny Friedmann is assistant professor at the Peking University School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen