Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Feb;115(2):317-20.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.8836. Epub 2006 Nov 14.

Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animal feeding operations

Affiliations

Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animal feeding operations

Kelley J Donham et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Feb.

Abstract

A consensus of the Workgroup on Community and Socioeconomic Issues was that improving and sustaining healthy rural communities depends on integrating socioeconomic development and environmental protection. The workgroup agreed that the World Health Organization's definition of health, "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity," applies to rural communities. These principles are embodied in the following main points agreed upon by this workgroup. Healthy rural communities ensure a) the physical and mental health of individuals, b) financial security for individuals and the greater community, c) social well-being, d ) social and environmental justice, and e) political equity and access. This workgroup evaluated impacts of the proliferation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) on sustaining the health of rural communities. Recommended policy changes include a more stringent process for issuing permits for CAFOs, considering bonding for manure storage basins, limiting animal density per watershed, enhancing local control, and mandating environmental impact statements.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Abeles-Allison M, Conner L. 1990. An Analysis of Local Benefits and Costs of Michigan Hog Operation Experiencing Environmental Conflicts. East Lansing, MI:Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.
    1. Avery R, Wing S, Marshall S, Schiffman S. Perceived odor from industrial hog operations and suppression of mucosal immune function in nearby residents. Arch Environ Health. 2004;59:101–108. - PubMed
    1. Bullers S. Environmental stressors, perceived control, and health: the case of residents near large-scale hog farms in eastern North Carolina. Hum Ecol. 2005;33:1–16.
    1. Campagna D, Kathman SJ, Pierson R, Inserra SG, Phifer BL, et al. Ambient hydrogen sulfide total reduced sulfur, and hospital visits for respiratory diseases in northeast Nebraska, 1998–2000. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2004;14:180–187. - PubMed
    1. Cantrell P, Perry R, Sturtz P.1996Hog wars: the corporate grab for control of the hog industry and how citizens are fighting back Culture Agric 18286–91.Available: http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/pdf/10.1525/cag.1996.18.2.86 [accessed 26 September 2005]. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources