[PDF] PLEA FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK FARMING - Free Download PDF (2024)

PLEAFORSUSTAINABLELIVESTOCKFARMING 
 AnEndtoOrganizedIrresponsibility 
 The
Dutch
province
of
North‐Brabant
has
imposed
a
temporary
restriction
on
the
construction
of
new
 mega
animal
stables.
The
threats
of
diseases,
‘flats’
for
pigs
and
large
industrial
complexes
with
tens
of
 thousands
of
animals,
and
their
impact
on
the
landscape:
enough
is
enough,
the
Provincial
Council
 agreed
in
response
to
a
public
initiative
of
33,000
citizens.
Although
this
decision
may
have
historical
 significance,
it
is
no
more
than
a
hesitant
start.
Minister
of
Agriculture
of
the
Dutch
government,
 Gerda
Verburg,
quickly
squashed
any
optimism
by
stating
that
in
other
parts
of
the
country,
there
may
 still
be
sufficient
room
for
mega‐stables.1
Moreover,
provincial
politicians
and
stakeholders
are
already
 pleading
for
exemptions,
exceptions
and
temporary
arrangements.
These
responses
illustrate
the
 persistence
of
problems
in
the
Dutch
intensive
livestock
industry.2
But
the
North‐Brabant
decision
also
 shows
the
need
for
change
and
the
beginning
of
a
turnaround.
That
is
hopeful,
in
view
of
the
 remarkable
stagnation
in
the
past
decade.
 “Intensive
animal
farming
should
be
changed
radically.
Animals
should
get
more
room
for
their
natural
 behaviours,
such
as
scratching
around
outside.
Transport
of
live
animals
should
be
limited
and
 breeding
of
livestock
should
not
focus
solely
on
increasing
productivity.”3
A
commission
chaired
by
 Herman
Wijffels
recommended
this
to
the
Dutch
Minister
of
Agriculture
in
2001.
“Current
animal
 farming
no
longer
fits
into
the
urban
society
that
we
live
in”,
Wijffels
commented
when
he
presented
 the
advice.
“The
keeping
of
animals
does
not
take
place
in
the
way
we
want
to
and
the
environment
is
 burdened
too
much.
The
animals
have
little
resistance
to
diseases,
food
safety
is
threatened,
and
the
 expenses
of
crises
are
escalating.”
 Brinkhorst,
the
Minister
of
Agriculture
at
the
time,
called
the
plans
“clear,
tough
and
inescapable”
and
 planned
to
introduce
the
proposed
reforms
rapidly.
By
2010,
the
industrial,
and
degrading
–
for
both
 humans
and
animals
–
meat
and
dairy
production
would
be
a
matter
of
the
past.
In
the
parliamentary
 notes
“Keeping
Animals”
(2001)
and
“Animal
Welfare”
(2002)4
by
Brinkhorst,
these
intentions
were
 realized
by
placing
animal
welfare
centre
stage,
as
part
of
“a
transition
to
sustainable
farming”:
“In
an
 international
context,
the
Dutch
government
chooses
to
position
itself
as
a
leader
in
the
shaping
of
 humane
and
socially
acceptable
animal
farming.”

 The
Wijffels
commission5,
which
was
composed
quite
broadly,
had
provided
all
the
reasons
for
the
 need
for
this
transition
in
its
report:
the
large‐scale
production
methods,
minimal
living
space
for
 animals,
animals
rarely
going
outside,
stench,
environmental
degradation,
reduction
of
the
gene
pool,
 damage
to
surrounding
natural
areas,
long‐distance
transportation
of
animals,
dioxin
and
hormone
 scandals,
swine
fever,
mad
cow
disease,
foot
and
mouth
disease,
and
subsidized
overproduction;
a
 farming
system
“that
treats
animals
immorally
and
has
raised
the
exploitation
of
animals
to
such
a
 level
that
any
malfunction
will
have
disastrous
consequences.”
 The
Wijffels
commission
was
not
alone
in
noticing
that
the
“developments
within
the
livestock
 industry
...
have
exceeded
the
limits
of
what
is
acceptable
and
permissible.”
Sicco
Mansholt,
one
of
 the
architects
of
modern
agriculture,
described
intensive
animal
farming
as
“a
system
of
organized


1


http://www.boerderij.nl/1097469/Varkenshouderij/Verburg‐verbindt‐geen‐gevolgen‐aan‐Brabants‐besluit.htm


2


In
the
remainder,
the
terms
intensiveanimalfarming,
livestockindustry,
and
factoryfarming
are
used
interchangeably.


3


“De
Volkskrant”
May
30,
2001:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article890640.ece/Einde_intensieve_veehouderij


4


http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640803&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_item_id=18778
;
 www.minlnv.nl/txmpub/files/?p_file_id=13616


5


http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640851&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_item_id=18376


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


1

irresponsibility”
in
his
last
interview
in
19956.
Agriculture
Minister
Cees
Veerman
concluded
in
2003:
 “We
import
fodder,
export
pigs,
and
keep
the
mess
here.
The
system
is
stuck.”
 Today,
in
2010,
we
must
conclude
that
the
doomsday
scenario
of
the
Wijffels
commission
has
almost
 entirely
come
true,
and
even
worse.
We
have
been
faced
with
Q‐fever,
livestock‐related
MRSA,
ESBL,7
 the
threat
of
an
H5N1
pandemic,
and
the
impact
of
the
intensive
animal
feed
industry
and
animal
 farming
on
greenhouse
gas
emissions
have
become
even
more
evident.
In
the
year
by
which
the
 proposed
measures
should
all
have
been
executed,
it
appears
that
hardly
anything
has
been
done
with
 the
recommendations.8
On
the
contrary,
the
livestock
industry
has
intensified
even
further,
there
are
 still
large‐scale
culling
operations
of
healthy
animals,
animal
disease
crises
remain
a
major
public
 health
threat,
and
we
should
still
be
ashamed
of
the
living
and
slaughtering
conditions
of
hundreds
of
 millions
of
animals
in
our
“civilized”
society.
 Over
one
hundred
full
professors
at
various
Dutch
universities
from
a
variety
of
disciplines
have
now
 united
to
use
their
collective
expertise
and
effort,
to
promote
the
structural
reform
of
intensive
 farming
that
was
already
considered
necessary
ten
years
ago.
 Never
before
in
history
have
we
spent
such
a
small
fraction
(less
than
10%9)
of
our
family
income
on
 food.
And
never
before
has
the
production
of
food
had
such
an
enormous
impact
on
our
environment.
 The
cost
of
food
has
decreased.
The
price
is
being
paid
by
animals,
nature,
and
the
environment
–
and
 thus,
in
time,
by
us
and
future
generations.
The
livestock
industry
leaves
severe,
and
in
part
 irreversible,
damage
in
our
environment,
in
biodiversity,
global
food
supply,
balance
of
minerals,
 freshwater
resources,
public
health,
and
especially
animal
welfare.
 
 Animalwelfare In
the
recommendations
of
the
Wijffels
commission
and
the
plans
of
Brinkhorst,
the
aim
of
natural
 treatment
of
animals
was
laid
down.
It
was
noted
that
this
requires
adjustment
of
the
farming
system
 to
the
animal,
rather
than
vice
versa.
Factory
farming
has
developed
into
an
industrial
enterprise
–

 technically,
a
sophisticated
and
highly
efficient
production
system
–
in
which
animals
are
adapted
to
 the
needs
of
the
industry,
even
to
the
extent
that
they
are
mutilated.
Animals
are
bred
to
produce
 ever
higher
outputs:
in
the
past
25
years,
25%
more
eggs
per
hen,
40%
more
growth
per
animal,
and
 40%
more
milk
per
cow.10
The
increasingly
larger
scale
of
the
industry
appears
to
result
in
a
strong
 “thing‐ification”
of
the
animal:
the
animal
is
treated
as
an
object,
a
product.
There
are
cattle
breeds
 that
cannot
give
natural
birth
to
a
calf
any
longer;
pigs
with
congenital
heart
and
leg
problems
because
 of
our
preference
for
lean
meat,
suffering
from
anxiety
and
stress
leading
to
break‐down
of
their
 muscle
tissues11;
calves
that
are
separated
from
their
mothers
immediately
after
birth
and
suffering
 from
anaemia
due
to
a
low‐iron
diet12
because
they
must
produce
white
meat
on
behalf
of
export
 preferences;
hens
destined
solely
to
produce
eggs,
so
that
in
The
Netherlands
alone,
50
million
one‐ day‐old
male
chicks
a
year
are
gassed
or
shredded
alive
because
they
serve
no
useful
production
 6


http://geschiedenis.vpro.nl/programmas/3299530/afleveringen/15337284/items/16651494/


7

http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&Tx_ttnews[tt_news]=24177&tx_ttnews[backpid]=1972&cHash=8f497565 d1


8


http://weblogs.nrc.nl/opklaringen/2010/01/02/ongezond‐vleesbeleid‐is‐deel‐van‐de‐grote‐crisis/


9

http://www.cbs.nl/nl‐NL/menu/themas/prijzen/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008‐2582‐wm.htm

10


Leo
den
Hartog
(Director
of
Nutreco),
lecture
in
June
2006,
Symposium
Animal
Diseases,
LNV,
Castle
Groeneveld
Baarn.


11


http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/aer835/aer835c.pdf;
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1‐145681186.html


12


scientific
opinion
on:
The
risks
of
poor
welfare
in
intensive
calf
farming
systems,
May
2006,
EFSA
(Scientific
Committee
 European
Commission),
p.
10‐11:
 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej366_calveswelfare_en1.pdf?ssbinary=true


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


2

purpose13;
and
other
chickens
are
bred
to
grow
from
a
few
grams
at
birth
to
2
kgs
in
40
days:
“The
 broiler
has
not
been
a
real
chicken
for
quite
a
while
now.
...
This
juvenile
bundle
of
muscles
is
 admittedly
a
technological
marvel,
but
from
a
welfare
point
of
view
it
is
a
disaster.
...
With
such
an
 explosive
growth
in
a
period
of
six
weeks,
their
hearts,
lungs
and
legs
can
barely
cope.
Some
animals
 literally
grow
to
death.
...
Other
animals
are
so
heavy
that
their
legs
can
no
longer
support
them.
Their
 legs
collapse
and
they
can
hardly
move.”14

 Based
exclusively
on
financial
considerations,
animals
are
literally
reconstructed
to
meet
production
 requirements,
by
means
of
invasive
interventions
(often
without
anaesthetics),
such
as
the
cutting
of
 beaks
and
tails,
filing
of
teeth,
castration
and
dehorning.
Hidden
from
public
view,
each
year
hundreds
 of
millions
of
animals
are
slaughtered
in
our
country,
after
unnaturally
short
lives
with
hardly
any
 opportunity
for
natural
behaviour
such
as
exploring,
scratching/pecking,
running,
nesting,
playing,
and
 other
social
behaviour.
Due
to
the
current
slaughter
surveillance
systems
and
limited
supervision,
 there
is
no
guarantee
that
the
animals
have
been
effectively
stunned
before
killing,
or
that
they
are
all
 truly
dead
by
the
time
they
are
hanging
from
the
hooks.15

 Both
farmers
and
consumers
feel
uncomfortable
when
the
issue
of
animal
well
being
in
the
livestock
 industry
is
raised.16
Most
people,
including
farmers
themselves,
frown
upon
this
state
of
affairs,
but
 tacitly
accept
it
by
means
of
a
psychological
mechanism
called
“pluralistic
ignorance”,17

which
can
be
 described
by
the
idea:
“If
nobody
is
concerned,
then
apparently
it’s
not
so
bad”
and
“If
it
was
really
 that
bad,
the
government
would
do
something
about
it.”
Moreover,
consumers
often
feel
that
their
 food
choices
have
little
impact:
the
‘drop‐in‐the‐bucket’
feeling.
When
the
resulting
conformity
is
 interpreted,
by
government,
farmers,
and
suppliers,
as
a
sign
that
consumers
approve
of
the
methods
 of
production,
then
the
cycle
is
closed:
all
parties
assume
there
is
nothing
wrong
because
the
other
 party
doesn’t
seem
to
think
anything
is
wrong.
Our
government’s
tolerant
attitude
also
subtly
creates
 a
new
general
social
norm:
apparently,
the
way
in
which
we
treat
farm
animals
is
perfectly
normal.
 Even
if
consumers
try
hard
to
buy
more
animal‐friendly
food,
it
requires
a
lot
of
work
to
find
out
how
 food
has
actually
been
produced.
The
traceability
of
our
food
is
focused
on
preventing
contamination
 and
pollution,
but
there
is
hardly
any
ethical
traceability,
on
the
basis
of
which
consumers
may
express
 their
moral
choices18.
For
instance,
40%
of
Dutch
consumers
think
they
buy
eggs
produced
by
chickens
 free
to
roam
outside.
In
reality,
this
applies
only
to
free‐range
and
organic
chickens,
that
supply
13%
 and
3%
of
the
eggs,
respectively.
 
 Natureandenvironment Dutch
livestock
currently
produces
70
billion
kilograms
of
manure
per
year19
(more
than
4,000
kg
per
 inhabitant).
These
huge
amounts
result
in
severe
environmental
stress,
acidification
and
 13


http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640333&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_item_id=19985


14


http://library.wur.nl/way/bestanden/clc/1803525.pdf


15


cf.
Jonathan
Safran
Foer
(2010).
Eating
Animals
(2010),
and
http://www.agd.nl/1098473/Nieuws/Varkenshouderij/Meer‐ nieuws‐varkenshouderij/Varkens‐Duitse‐slachterijen‐half‐levend‐aan‐de‐haak.htm.


16


Velde,
H.M.,
te,
M.N.C.
Aarts
&
C.M.J.
van
Woerkum
(2002).
Dealing
with
ambivalence:
farmers’
and
consumers’
 perceptions
of
animal
welfare
in
live
stock
breeding.
Journalofa*gricultural&EnvironmentalEthics,15(2):
203‐219;
Velde,
 H.M.,
te,
M.N.C.
Aarts
&
C.M.J.
van
Woerkum
(2001).
Eten,
maar
niet
willen
weten
[Eating,
but
don’t
want
to
know].
In:
H.M.
 te
Velde
&
C.
Hanning
et
al
(2001).
Hoe
oordelen
we
over
de
veehouderij?
[How
do
we
judge
livestock
management?]
The
 Hague:
Rathenau
Institute
20012.


17


Katz,
D.,
&
Allport,
F.H.
(1931).
Students’Attitudes.
Syracuse,
N.Y.:
Craftsman
Press;
Darley,
J.
M.
&
Latané,
B.
(1968).
 Bystander
intervention
in
emergencies:
Diffusion
of
responsibility.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,8,
377‐383.


18


Korthals,
M.
(2007).
Voeding
en
landbouw:
chaos,
ellende
en
tegenstrijdigheden.
[Food
and
agriculture:
Chaos,
misery
and
 contradictions.]
NRCHandelsblad,
Dec.
15,
2007.


19


http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0104‐Mestproductie‐door‐de‐veestapel.html?i=3‐17


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


3

eutrophication
of
soils
and
surface
waters,
and
contamination
of
groundwater.20
Heath
fields
and
 dunes
turn
into
grasslands
due
to
nitrogen
contamination
from
the
air,
and
low‐lying,
species‐rich,
 grasslands
and
swamp
forests
deteriorate
due
to
exposure
to
large
amounts
of
nitrate
and
sulphate
 via
polluted
groundwater.21
The
excessive
fertilization
by
the
livestock
industry
represents
one
of
the
 most
serious
threats
to
the
flora
in
our
natural
environments22.
As
a
consequence,
the
Netherlands
 most
probably
cannot
meet
European
obligations
to
attain
specific
EU
objectives
for
nature
(Habitats
 Directive,
Natura‐2000).
Moreover,
in
some
regions
the

high
rates
of
fertilization
threaten
drinking
 water
supplies.23
It
is
striking
that
EU
nitrate
standards
for
drinking
water
in
groundwater
under
 agricultural
sites
are
exceeded
almost
everywhere
in
the
Netherlands.24
The
high
fertilizer
application
 rates
can
also
lead
to
elevated
concentrations
of
hazardous
substances
such
as
sulphate
and
arsenic
 compounds.25

 Fauna
in
our
natural
areas
also
suffers.
For
instance,
heavy
fertilization
practices
have
led
to
a
sharp
 decrease
in
the
number
of
large
insects
in
the
vast
area
of
Dutch
grasslands,26
with
major
negative
 implications
to
all
living
organisms
depending
on
these
insects
(meadow
birds,
swallows,
amphibians,
 dragonflies).
 In
addition
to
nitrogen,
manure
also
contains
substantial
amounts
of
phosphate:
via
animal
fodder,
it
 is
imported
here
from
overseas
countries,
and
is
emitted
into
our
environment
via
animal
excrements.
 The
environmental
impact
of
phosphorus
per
kg
of
meat
protein
production
is,
roughly,
seven
times
 the
phosphorus
load
per
kg
of
plant
protein.27
While
phosphate
produces
serious
environmental
 pollution
here,
it
is
rapidly
becoming
a
scarce
resource
in
other
parts
of
the
world.28
The
phosphate
 that
is
present
in
the
world
as
a
mineral
is
expected
to
run
out
this
century,
which
will
make
 traditional
agriculture
impossible
because
phosphate
is
an
essential
nutrient.
At
the
same
time,
in
our
 country,
we
flush
away
huge
amounts
of
phosphate,
with
our
excess
manure,

that
cannot
be


20


Roelofs,
J.G.M.,
J.A.A.R.
Schuurkes
&
A.J.M.
Smits
(1983).
Impact
of
acidification
and
eutrophication
on
Macrophyte
 communities
in
soft
waters,
AquaticBotany17:139‐155;
Roelofs,
J.G.M.,
A.J.
Kempers,
A.L.F.
Houdijk
&
J.
Jansen
(1985).
The
 effect
or
air‐borne
ammonium
sulphate
on
Pinusnigra
var.
maritima
in
the
Netherlands,
PlantandSoil84,
45‐56.


21


Witte,
J.P.M.,
C.J.S.
Aggenbach
&
Runhaar,
J.
(2007).
Grondwater
voor
Natuur.
In:
R.
Lieste
et
al.,
Beoordeling
van
de
 grondwatertoestand
op
basis
van
de
Kaderrichtlijn
Water,
[Groundwater
for
Nature.
In:
R.
Lieste
et
al,
Assessment
of
the
 groundwater
situation
on
the
basis
of
the
Directive
‘Water
Guidelines’,]
p.
43‐102.
RIVM,
Bilthoven.


22


Aggenbach
C.J.S.
(Ed.),
2005.
Knelpunten
en
kansenanalyse
Natura
2000
gebieden.
[Constraints
and
opportunity
analysis
 Natura
2000
sites.]
Kiwa
/
EGG‐consult,
Nieuwegein.


23


Van
Beek,
C.G.E.M.,
D.
van
der
Kooij,
P.C.
Noordam
and
J.G.
Schippers
(1984).
Nitraat
en
drinkwatervoorziening.
[Nitrate
 and
drinking
water
supply.]
Kiwa
Mededeling
[Communication]
84,
144
p.,
Nieuwegein.


24


RIVM,
2008.

Waterkwaliteit
op
landbouwbedrijven.
Evaluatie
Meststoffenwet
2007.
[Water
quality
on
farms.
Evaluation
 Manure
Act
2007.]
RIVM
report
680130002/2007,
Willems,
W.J.,
B.
Fraters,
C.R.
Meinardi,
Reijnders,
H.F.R
&
C.G.E.
M.
van
 Beek
(2002).
Nutriënten
in
bodem
en
grondwater:
kwaliteitsdoelstellingen
en
kwaliteit
1984‐2000.
[Nutrients
in
soil
and
 groundwater:
quality
objectives
and
quality
1984‐2000.]
RIVM
report
718201004,
Bilthoven.


25


Van
Beek,
C.G.E.M.
(1999).
Herkomst
van
sporenelemmenten
in
grond‐
en
oppervlaktewater,
onvermoede
bronnen
en
 bekende
processen.

[Origin
of
trace
elements
in
groundwater
and
surface
water,
unexpected
sources
and
well‐known
 processes.]
H2O32(9):
23‐26;
Van
Beek,
C.G.E.M.,
M.H.
Jalink
&
A.F.M.
Meuleman
(2001).
De
verzwaveling
van
grondwater
 in
zandgronden.
[Sulphurisation
of
groundwater
in
sandy
soils.]
Landschap
18(4):
263‐272;
Van
Beek,
C.G.E.M.,
G.
van
den
 Berg
&
P.
Hesen
(2005)
Geohydrochemische
typologie
als
hulpmiddel
bij
grondwaterkwaliteitsbeheer.
[Geohydrochemical
 typology
as
a
tool
for
managing
groundwater
quality.]
Bodem
5:
178‐181.


26


Schekkerman,
H
&
Beintema,
A.J.
(2007).
Abundance
of
invertebrates
and
foraging
success
of
black‐tailed
godwit
Limosa limosa
chicks
in
relation
to
agricutural
grassland
management.
Ardea95:
39‐54.


27


Reijnders,
L.
&
S.
Soret
(2003).
Quantification
of
the
environmental
impact
of
different
dietary
protein
choices.
American JournalofClinicalNutrition78:
664S‐668S.


28


Udo
de
Haes,
H.A.
et
al
(2009).
Fosfaat
‐
van
te
veel
naar
tekort.
Beleidsnotitie
van
de
Stuurgroep
Technology
Assessment
 van
het
Minsiterie
van
LNV.
[Phosphate
‐
from
surplus
to
deficit.
Policy
note
of
the
Technology
Assessment
Steering
Group
of
 the
Ministry
of
LNV.]
Utrecht,
September
2009.


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


4

recovered.29
These
phosphates
accumulate
in
soils
and
elsewhere
in
nature30,
for
instance,
in
surface
 waters
or
as
precipitates
deep
in
seas
and
oceans.
In
short,
despite
an
imminent
shortage
of
 phosphate
in
the
world,
we
take
it
away
from
other
countries
in
the
form
of
animal
feed,
thus
creating
 local
surpluses
that
we
flush
away.
In
this
way,
we
jeopardise
the
future
world
food
supply.

 Worldwide,
more
than
80%
of
agricultural
land
now
serves
the
livestock
industry
in
some
way,
and
 more
than
40%
of
the
world
grain
harvest
is
swallowed
up
by
livestock,
whereas
a
substantial
part
of
 that
grain
could
serve
as
food
for
humans.31

 
 Ecologicalfootprint,climate,andworldfoodsupply In
the
conversion
of
plant
protein
to
animal
protein,
environmental
damage
occurs
in
almost
every
 stage.
An
animal
is
an
“inefficient
protein
converter”
–
roughly,
1
kg
of
meat
=
5
kg
of
grain
(corn,
 soybeans,
or
tapioca)
(=
6
kg
manure)32.
In
order
to
grow
this
grain,
extensive
areas
of
arable
land
are
 required
elsewhere
in
the
world:
one
third
of
farmland
in
the
world
is
used
to
produce
animal
feed.
 The
disappearance
of
natural
areas
and
the
cutting
down
of
rain
forests
to
create
still
further
 agricultural
expansion,
continues
unabated.
 Whereas
we
know
that
the
currently
available
arable
land
can
produce
sufficient
plant
food
for
tens
of
 billions
of
people,
more
than
one
billion
people
suffer
from
malnutrition
every
day.33
That
number
will
 definitely
not
decrease
with
the
predicted
redoubling
of
meat
demand
in
the
world,
from
228
million
 tons
today
to
463
million
tons
in
2050.34
In
that
year,
it
is
expected
that
9.5
billion
people
will
need
to
 be
fed.
This
will
only
be
possible
if
the
arable
land
is
used
in
a
sustainable
fashion.
 These
problems
are
international
and
cannot
be
solved
by
the
Netherlands
alone.
However,
our
 responsibility
is
very
high,
given
the
relatively
disproportionate
size
of
our
livestock
industry.
The
 Netherlands
has
the
highest
livestock
density
in
the
world
and
is
the
second
biggest
exporter
of
animal
 proteins
in
the
world,
after
the
USA.
Our
cows,
pigs,
and
chicken
live
mainly
on
imported
feed,
 especially
soy
from
South
America.
 The
production
of
meat
not
only
requires
agricultural
land
but
also
water,
which
is
already
scarce
in
 many
parts
of
the
world,
and
will
be
in
other
parts
in
the
future.
All
food
production
requires
water,
 but
disproportionately
so
for
meat
production,
thus
leading
to
even
greater
freshwater
scarcity.
In
 2017,
70%
of
the
world
population
will
have
problems
with
access
to
clean
fresh
water,35
but
we
 continue
wasting
large
quantities
of
it
to
produce
animal
proteins36
–
not
only
in
the
Netherlands,
but
 especially
so
in
developing
countries
where
the
fodder
is
produced.


29


http://www.trouw.nl/achtergrond/deverdieping/article1844890.ece


30


http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/articles/Peak‐phosphorus;
Wassen,
M.J,
Olde
Venterink,
H.,
Lapshina,
E.D.,
&
 Tanneberger,
F.
(2005).
Endangered
plants
persist
under
phosphorus
limitation.
Nature,437,
547‐550.


31

http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,3387931&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=28004

32


Van
Huis,
WUR,
2008
[PDF]
http://edepot.wur.nl/14249


33


Kamervragen
over
de
vleesconsumptie
in
relatie
tot
de
wereldvoedselcrisis
en
de
uitstoot
van
broeikasgassen
 [Parliamentary
questions
on
the
meat
consumption
in
relation
to
the
world
food
crisis
and
greenhouse
gas
emissions],
May
 29,
2008.
http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640854&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=28004


34


FAO
State
of
Food
and
Agriculture
2009,
Livestock
in
the
Balance,
2010.


http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e00.htm
;
Stehfest,
E.
et
al
(2009),
Climate
benefits
of
changing
diet.
Climatic Change95:83‐102.
DOI
10.1007/s10584‐008‐9534‐6.
 35

http://www.duurzaamnieuws.nl/mvo/bericht.rxml?id=41232&title=Wereldwaterforum%3A%20van20wie%20is%20het20% blauwe%20goud%3F


36


http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


5

Livestock
industry
also
contributes
significantly
to
climate
change.
Conservative
calculations
by
the
 Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
(FAO)
of
the
UN
indicate
that
the
emission
of
greenhouse
gases
by
 livestock
globally
is
40%
higher
than
of
all
cars,
trucks,
trains,
ships
and
aircrafts
combined37,
while

 researchers
have
now
calculated
that
these
emissions
may
even
be
much
higher
if
all
side
effects
are
 taken
into
account
as
well.38
Take,
for
example,
the
transportation
of
animal
feed
and
of
animals
 themselves:
ideally,
the
production
of
feed,
the
rearing,
and
the
slaughtering
and
processing
location
 should
all
be
close
together,
to
prevent
animal
suffering
and
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
If
every
Dutch
 person
would
refrain
from
eating
meat
only
one
week
in
a
year,
this
would
already
decrease
these
 emissions
by
3.5%.39
With
just
one
meatless
day
a
week,
all
climate
goals
of
the
Dutch
government
for
 its
households
for
2012
would
be
realized.40

 
 Publichealth For
the
sake
of
their
health,
Dutch
consumers
should
consume
one
third
less
proteins,
and
replace
one
 third
of
their
animal
protein
intake
by
vegetable
protein.41
Nevertheless,
by
means
of
campaigns
 sponsored
by
the
European
taxpayer,
the
consumption
of
chicken42
and
milk
products43
is
promoted
in
 order
to
absorb
overproduction
by
increasing
consumption,
instead
of
reducing
production.
This
 continues
in
spite
of
the
major
health
disadvantages
of
animal
fat
intake,44
and
the
warning
by
the
 World
Health
Organisation
(WHO)
that
the
dairy
promotion
strategy
of
the
EU
has
harmful
effects
on
 public
health.45

 Consumption
of
meat
and
dairy
products
contributes
to
the
intake
of
saturated
fat,
which
increases
 the
risk
of
cardiovascular
diseases.46
Furthermore,
the
consumption
of
red
meat
and
processed
meats
 is
associated
with
an
increased
risk
of
colon
cancer.47
Considering
the
increase
in
obesity
and
type
2
 diabetes
mellitus,
the
consumption
of
more
plant‐based
foods

–
with
a
relatively
high
dietary
fibre
 content
and
low
energy
density
–
is
desirable
as
well:
on
average,
vegetarians
weigh
less
than
meat
 eaters,
and
people
who
switch
to
a
plant‐based
diet,
gain
less
weight
in
subsequent
years
than
meat
 eaters.48
Under
current
policies,
aimed
at
ever‐higher
production
of
animal
proteins
at
lower
costs,
 there
appears
to
be
no
other
option
than
promoting
products
that
should
really
be
consumed
less
for
 the
sake
of
public
health.


37


http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html


38


http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%%20Climate20Change.pdf


39


Http://www.wrr.nl/content.jsp?objectid=5169
:
De
overheid
als
keuzearchitect?
[The
government
as
choice
architect?]


40


http://www.nrc.nl/opinie/article1857442.ece/Minder_vlees_moet


41


Aiking
et
al
(2006):
Sustainable
Protein
Production
and
Consumption:
Pigs
or
Peas?
 http://www.springer.com/environment/book/978‐1‐4020‐4062‐7


42


http://www.pve.nl/pve?waxtrapp=cccJsHsuOpbPREcBHZ


43


http://www.nu.nl/economie/2199650/joris‐driepinter‐komt‐terug.html


44


http://www.mkatan.nl/columns‐en‐kranten/nrc‐columns/312‐hoe‐melkvet‐gezond‐wordt.html


45


http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/7/08‐053728/en/index.html


46


Mozaffarian
D,
Micha
R,
Wallace
S,
2010
Effects
on
Coronary
Heart
Disease
of
Increasing
Polyunsaturated
Fat
in
Place
of
 Saturated
Fat:
A
Systematic
Review
and
Meta‐Analysis
of
Randomized
Controlled
Trials.
PLoSMed
7(3):e1000252.
 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252


47


http://www.wcrf‐nl.org/onderzoek/rapportkankerpreventie/index.php


48


Rosell
M,
Appleby
P,
Spencer
E,
Key
T
(2006).
Weight
gain
over
5
years
in
21,966
meat‐eating,
fish‐eating,
vegetarian,
and
 vegan
men
and
women
in
EPIC‐Oxford.
InternJObesity(Lond).30(9)
:1389‐1396;
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16534521


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


6

Apart
from
unhealthy
food
intake,
there
are
additional
health
effects
associated
with
the
keeping
of
 animals
on
this
large
and
intensive
scale.49
For
example,
the
emission
of
volatile
compounds
and
 particulate
matter
is
harmful
to
public
health.50
Recently,
attention
has
increased
for
the
dangers
of
 intensive
use
of
antibiotics,
which
were
known
long
before.
Animals
living
under
unnatural
conditions,
 crowded
in
large
numbers,
as
in
the
current
livestock
industry,
lose
their
resistance
and
easily
 contaminate
each
other,
so
their
condition
can
only
be
controlled
by
large
quantities
of
antibiotics.
 Moreover,
low
dosages
of
antibiotics
and
chemotherapeutics
are
continuously
mixed
into
the
feed
to
 promote
growth.
Pathogenic
bacteria
that
can
seriously
threaten
public
health,
may
become
resistant
 to
the
antibiotics
that
they
come
in
touch
with
so
extensively
in
factory
farms.
Suspicion
is
growing
 that
these
bacteria,
through
food
and
through
contacts
with
animals
(mostly
by
the
animal
farmers
 themselves),
can
infect
humans,
who
subsequently
infect
each
other.51
For
this
reason,
for
example
 pig
farmers
who
are
admitted
to
hospital,
are
quarantined
because
they
are
often
carriers
of
these
 bacteria.
It
may
not
be
long
before
all
animal
farmers
will
be
denied
access
to
public
hospitals
because
 they
carry
bacteria
that
can
be
life‐threatening
to
weakened
patients.

 Pathogenic
agents
such
as
Q‐fever,
MRSA,
ESBL‐bacteria
and
pathogens
in
livestock
products
are
 already
making
many
human
victims.
80%
of
Dutch
goat
farmers
and
their
family
members
are
 infected
with
Q‐fever,
and
so
is
2.4%
of
the
entire
Dutch
population
now.52
The
reduction
of
the
gene
 pool
resulting
from
the
exclusive
focus
on
production
and
volume
in
the
livestock
industry
increases
 the
risk
of
a
massive
and
fast‐spreading
infection,
as
well
as
mutations
of
pathogens
associated
with
 risks
to
humans.
The
minister
of
Agriculture
has
announced
that
the
use
of
antibiotics
will
have
to
be
 reduced
to
50%
by
2013.
Apart
from
the
question
whether
this
reduction
is
sufficient
and
whether
it
is
 realized
in
time
to
avoid
large‐scale
infections
of
antibiotic‐resistant
bacteria
in
humans,
it
is
also
 unclear
how
the
outbreak
of
diseases
in
animals
can
be
avoided
if
nothing
changes
in
their
living
 conditions.
 Finally,
we
note
that
in
the
Netherlands,
it
is
virtually
impossible
to
buy
any
chicken
meat
that
is
not
 contaminated
with
Salmonella
or
Campylobacter
bacteria,
in
spite
of
the
agreement
between
the
 Ministry
of
Agriculture
and
the
chicken
industry
to
solve
this
problem.
In
any
other
food
sector,
the
 presence
of
such
contaminated
products
in
stores
would
probably
lead
to
confiscation
and
factory
 closures.
 
 Financialandeconomicconsiderations In
spite
of
accumulating
scientific
evidence
that
we
cannot
continue
the
way
we
are
going,
the
policy
 of
the
Ministry
of
Agriculture
in
the
past
decade
has
had
the
effect
of
still
further
intensification
and
 expansion.
The
idea
behind
this
policy
is
that
the
livestock
industry
benefits
our
economy,
export,
and
 farmers’
incomes.
Considering
the
problems
discussed
in
this
essay,
which
are
inherent
in
this
 production
system,
the
question
is
whether
such
financial
considerations
are
relevant
at
all.
Just
as
we
 have
accepted
our
responsibility
in
abolishing
slavery
and
child
labour,
so
must
we
do
likewise
in
our
 handling
of
farm
animals.
Today,
nobody
would
dare
to
claim
that
there
is
something
to
be
said
in
 favour
of
child
labour
or
slavery
because
of
the
economic
benefits.
When
an
ethical
boundary
is
 crossed,
financial
considerations
become
irrelevant.


49


http://parlis.nl/pdf/kamerstukken/KST138577.pdf
;
http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/215011002.pdf


50


Howard,
C.J.
et
al
(2010).
Direct
measurements
of
the
ozone
formation
potential
from
livestock
and
poultry
waste
 emissions.
EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology44:2292‐2298:
Howard,
Ko,
G.
et
al
(in
press).
Endotoxin
levels
at
swine
 farms
using
different
waste
treatment
and
management
technologies.
EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology.


51


http://www.rivm.nl/persberichten/2009/veelmrsaveehouderij.jsp


52


http://www.omroepbrabant.nl/?news/1347931103/Meeste+geitenhouders+en+gezinnen+hebben+Q‐koorts.aspx


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


7

If
one
does
insist
on
considering
the
financial
aspects
of
the
livestock
industry,
this
should
be
done
 properly.
Factory
farming
generates
large
costs
for
society53
in
the
form
of
environmental
problems
 such
as
acidification,
eutrophication,
emission
of
particulate
matter,
pollution
through
excessive
use
 of
pesticides
and,
last
but
not
least,
climate
change.
Dutch
citizens
pay
hundreds
of
Euros
on
sewage
 taxes,
whereas
the
societal
costs
of
manure
surpluses
from
livestock
farming
are
not,
or
only
for
a
 small
part,
incorporated
into
the
price
of
animal
products.
Instead,
the
costs
of
pollution
are
partially
 shared
by
all
citizens
through
general
taxes,
and
to
a
larger
extent
passed
on
to
future
generations.
 In
recent
research54,
the
environmental
impact
of
pork
production
has
been
quantified
into
the
 categories:
climate
change,
animal
welfare,
biodiversity,
and
animal
diseases.
The
total
societal
cost
of
 conventional
pork
production
was
estimated
at
€
2.32
per
kg
at
least.
The
total
annual
societal
cost
of
 all
pigs
slaughtered
in
the
Netherlands
in
2008
amounts
to
at
least
€
1.5
billion,
or
almost
€
100,
‐
per
 Dutch
citizen.
 In
addition,
farmers
in
the
Netherlands
receive
an
annual
income
subsidy
of
almost
one
billion
euros.
 Dairy
farmers
and
growers
(who
produce
fodder)
receive
money
from
the
EU.
This
money
often
ends
 up
in
regions
where
eutrophication
and
desiccation
are
most
serious.
In
this
way,
the
government
 subsidizes
pollution
of
the
environment.
Dutch
agriculture
can
only
survive
with
the
help
of
massive
 state
support.
If
this
support
is
phased
out,
and
fixed
prices
are
abolished
as
is
now
being
proposed
for
 milk,
then
the
problems
we
have
described
will
be
far
from
resolved:
in
the
present
system,
farmers
 can
only
survive
by
intensifying
even
further.
 A
paradigm
shift,
directed
by
the
government,
can
no
longer
be
deferred.
In
our
view,
the
solution
to
 the
problems
arising
from
low
food
prices
can
only
be
found
in
a
thorough
restructuring
of
the
entire
 industry.
This
will
lead
to
increased
prices
of
animal
products,
so
that
traditional
farming
(land‐based,
 with
the
production
of
forage,
breeding
and
rearing
of
animals,
fattening
and
slaughtering
all
taking
 place
in
the
same
region)
can
become
profitable
again
without
any
government
subsidies.
Prices
of
 animal
products
are
too
low;
an
egg
in
the
store
today
costs
as
much
as
60
years
ago.
In
the
present
 livestock
industry,
an
acceptable
income
can
only
be
earned
by
means
of
bulk
production.
Each
week,
 50
farmers
in
the
Netherlands
stop
farming,
mostly
because
they
can
no
longer
keep
up
with
the
race
 to
ever‐greater
production55.
The
Common
Agricultural
Policy
(CAP),
a
system
of
European
Union
 agricultural
subsidies
and
programmes,
takes
up
more
than
40%
of
the
total
EU
budget.
For
many
 years
now,
it
has
focused
on
intensifying
and
enlarging
livestock
farms,
often
at
the
expense
of
animal
 welfare56,
animal
health,
the
environment,
and
public
health.

 The
Netherlands
has
developed
into
the
butcher
and
the
milkman
of
Europe,
by
exporting
75%
of
its
 animal
protein
at
rock‐bottom
prices
in
which
the
societal
costs
are
not
incorporated.
Dutch
 consumers
have
only
limited
impact
on
this
state
of
affairs,
because
their
purchasing
behaviour
only
 affects
a
small
part
of
the
total
production.

 Brinkhorst’s
policy
note
“Animal
Welfare”
(see
footnote
4)
from
2002
already
stated:
“Given
our
 current
and
future
position
in
the
market,
it
is
highly
likely
that
the
future
of
Dutch
livestock
farming
 will
be
in
market
segments
with
high
surplus
value.
A
demonstrably
high
level
of
animal
welfare
will
be
 the
feature
with
which
Dutch
livestock
farming
can
acquire
a
sustainable
position
in
the
demanding
 markets
of
north‐western
Europe
in
particular.”
However,
Brinkhorst
was
succeeded
by
ministers
 53


See
e.g,
Sengers
&
Hoste,
2004:

 http://www.lei.dlo.nl/wever/docs/nota/Indicatie_maatschappelijke_kosten_varkenshouderij_021104.pdf



54


Institute
for
Environmental
Studies
at
the
Vrije
[Free]
University,
commissioned
by
the
Nicolaas
G.
Pierson
Foundation,
see
 http://www.ngpf.nl/


55


http://www.cbs.nl/nl‐NL/menu/themas/landbouw/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008‐90101‐wk.htm


56


The
European
requirement,
contained
in
Article
13
of
the
Treaty
on
the
Functioning
of
the
European
Union
(TFEU),
to
“pay
 full
regard
to
the
welfare
requirements
of
animals”
since
“animals
are
sentient
beings”,
is
not
exactly
practiced
here.



Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


8

Veerman
and
Verburg,
respectively,
in
four
consecutive
governments
under
Balkenende.
In
this
 period,
these
good
intentions
were
never
carried
out.
 
 Conclusion The
future
prospect
of
more
responsible
animal
farming
sketched
by
the
Wijffels
commission
in
2001
 with
an
expiration
date
of
2010,
has
not
been
realised
in
any
way.57
Warnings
are
still
being
ignored
 and
the
necessary
policy
changes
have
not
been
made.

 The
Dutch
livestock
sector
can
only
have
a
future
if
the
steady
increase
in
scale
and
production
for
the
 world
market
is
ended,
and
production
for
domestic
use
becomes
the
core
business.
The
societal
 rejection
of
animal
cruelty
will
have
to
be
translated
into
a
transformed
farming
sector
that
operates
 according
to
ethical
standards
that
characterize
a
truly
civilized
society.
In
such
a
society,
it
is
 inappropriate
to
close
our
eyes
to
the
animal
suffering
that
is
associated
with
the
production
of
our
 food,
or
to
fool
our
children
when
they
ask
questions
about
the
origins
of
their
food
(“Milk
comes
in
 packets
from
the
factory”;
“No
dear,
those
piglets
don’t
mind
because
they
have
been
specially
made
 for
that
purpose”).

 It
is
time
for
us
to
reflect
on
the
principles
of
our
livestock
industry,
so
that
politicians
and
citizens
can
 arrive
at
choices
to
change
the
‘system
of
organized
irresponsibility’
(Mansholt)
and
get
a
clear
view
 on
the
‘limits
of
social
acceptability
and
tolerance’
(Wijffels).
Our
thinking
should
not
be
dominated
by
 impediments,
but
instead
by
possibilities
of
achieving
rapid
and
dramatic
improvement.
The
eventual
 loss
in
a
financial‐economic
sense
will
be
limited
in
the
long
run;
the
economy
is
dynamic
and
will
 adjust
–
as
it
did
after
the
abolition
of
slavery
and
of
child
labour,
in
spite
of
strong
opposition
at
the
 time.

 Nothing
less
than
a
paradigm
shift
is
needed:
a
change
from
an
intensive,
large‐scale
livestock
industry
 dominated
by
economics
and
technology,
to
a
farming
system
in
which
the
economy
and
technology
 are
at
the
service
of
animal
welfare,
human
health,
and
society
at
large.
This
provides
the
prospect
of
 real
sustainability.
This
type
of
farming
responds
to
the
needs
of
nature
and
of
all
living
beings.
With
 this
turnaround,
the
farming
business
will
again
be
socially
acceptable
and
tolerable,
and
we
no
longer
 have
to
fool
ourselves
and
each
other.

 
 Recommendations We,
scientists
from
various
disciplines,
working
at
Dutch
universities
as
full
professors
(or
emeritus
 professors),
believe
that
factory
farming
should
be
reorganized
and
transformed
into
a
system
that
is
 friendly
towards
animals,
humans,
and
the
environment,
and
that
meets
the
needs
of
nature
and
all
 living
beings.
Through
this
appeal,
we
aim
to
stimulate
a
public
debate
and
to
inspire
farmers,
 producers,
consumers,
voters,
and
politicians
to
make
choices
in
the
interest
of
animals,
nature,
our
 landscape
and
the
environment,
the
people
in
The
Netherlands
and
in
other
parts
of
the
world,
as
well
 as
future
generations.
To
accomplish
this,
we
argue
that
first
of
all,
the
plans
put
forward
by
Wijffels
 and
Brinkhorst
ten
years
ago,
should
be
realized.
It
is
unacceptable
that
these
recommendations
and
 policy
proposals
have
still
not
had
any
notable
effect
(even
though
the
target
date
was
2010,
and
for
 some
measures
even
2005).
Therefore,
we
plead
for
a
critical
evaluation
of
what
has
been
done
 specifically
with
the
recommendations
of
the
Wijffels
commission,
and
more
so
what
has
not
been
 done.



57


http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640782&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_item_id=18376;
 http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,2211815&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_item_id=18466;
 Chavannes,
M.
2010:
http://weblogs.nrc.nl/opklaringen/2010/01/02/ongezond‐vleesbeleid‐is‐deel‐van‐de‐grote‐crisis/



Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


9

In
addition,
we
have
formulated
the
following
general
principles
that,
in
our
opinion,
should
guide
the
 transformation
of
the
livestock
sector:

 1)
Thegovernmentandnotthemarketshoulddirectchange.The
agricultural
policy
in
the
past
decade
 has
demonstrated
redundantly
that
the
necessary
changes
are
not
realized
when
they
left
to
the
 market
or
the
consumers.
In
reforming
the
livestock
industry,
the
government
explicitly
has
to
take
on
 a
directing
role.
Through
legislation,
the
government
should
enforce
that
meat
and
dairy
production
 become
sustainable.
Moreover,
independent
governance
is
necessary58,
both
with
regards
to
animal
 welfare
and
environmental
impact,
and
to
zoonoses
(diseases
transmitted
from
humans
to
animals
 and
vice
versa)
and
food
safety.
The
time
for
rhetorics
and
consultations
without
commitment
is
over,
 given
the
large
and
urgent
global
challenges
we
are
facing
and
the
important
role
that
the
 consumption
of
animal
protein
plays
in
these
issues.

 2)
Theconsumptionofanimalproteinsshouldbereducedbyatleast33%by2020.
This
should
be
an
 objective
of
government
policy.
In
part,
the
government
can
achieve
this
objective,
which
requires
a
 change
in
consumer
behaviour,
by
informing
consumers
about
the
consequences
of
the
production
 and
consumption
of
meat
and
dairy
products
on
health,
environment,
climate,
third
world
countries
 and
animal
welfare,
and
about
the
benefits
of
plant‐based
products.
The
government
must
end
any
 form
of
sponsorship
of
meat
and
dairy
products
(such
as
the
chicken
meat‐campaign
sponsored
by
the
 European
Union)
or
promotion
of
the
livestock
sector
(such
as
the
publicly
funded
glossy
magazine
 “Gerda”,
which
was
released
by
the
Ministry
of
Agriculture
to
enhance
the
image
of
the
Dutch
farming
 industry).
The
government
should
promote
transparency
about
the
origins
of
products,
e.g.,
by
 regulating
food
labelling
and
containing
the
proliferation
of
‘approved
brands’.
If
the
government
also
 sets
a
good
example
by
providing
advice
and
independent
information
on
animal
welfare,
 environmental,
ecological
footprint
and
health,
this
will
generate
a
change
in
social
awareness
among
 consumers.
As
a
result,
commercial
companies
will
also
tailor
their
advertisem*nts
to
this
(just
as
they
 did
with
‘energy
saving’
campaigns),
instead
of
advertising
products
that
cause
animal
suffering
and
 societal
damage,
as
they
do
now.

 3)
Allsocietalcostsofmeatanddairyproductionshouldbeincorporatedintotheprice.
A
reduction
in
 the
consumption
of
animal
protein
may
further
be
achieved
by
incorporating
the
real
costs
of
meat
 and
dairy
production
entirely
into
the
price
of
the
product
(i.e.,
the
costs
of
overproduction,
over‐ consumption,
environmental
damage,
safeguarding
animal
health
and
public
health),
according
to
the
 principle
‘the
polluter
pays’.
The
starting
point
is
a
fair
price
that
reflects
all
expenses59
(with
possibly
 even
an
additional
tax:
in
the
case
of
petrol,
we
find
it
quite
normal
that
a
higher
tax
rate
is
applied
to
 discourage
use).
This
will
also
lead
to
lower
consumption,
so
that
supply
and
demand
are
balanced.
 Key
terms
for
the
consumption
of
meat
and
dairy
products
should
be:
less
and
better.
Farmers
who
 achieve
improvements
in
quality
and
sustainability
of
their
production,
and
in
animal
welfare,
will
 generate
a
higher
income
because
the
societal
costs
of
their
products
are
lower.
As
a
result,
the
 implementation
of
such
improvements
becomes
more
attractive
than
mere
production
increase.

 4)
TheNetherlandsshouldtaketheleadinEurope.
Wherever
possible,
measures
should
be
taken
in
a
 European
context,
but
given
the
size
of
its
livestock
industry,
the
Netherlands
should
take
the
lead.
 The
Dutch
government
must
take
the
initiative
in
international
forums
to
stimulate
sustainable
 production
of
meat
and
dairy
products,
to
prohibit
animal‐unfriendly
and
environmentally
damaging
 production,
and
to
convince
other
countries
that
this
path
is
in
the
public
interest.

 58


Peters,
P.
(2009).
Is
het
Staatstoezicht
nog
wel
onafhankelijk?
[Is
the
State
Inspectorate
still
independent?]
Journaal Warenwet8,
17‐20.


59


This
makes
the
cost
of
living
more
expensive,
which
is
especially
detrimental
for
the
poorer
consumer.
But
if

 we
all
do
it
together,
the
difference
may
only
be
small
because
the
costs
are
apportioned
over
many
persons.
Quite
 separately,
a
general
price
increase
of
foodstuffs
may
be
countered
by
lower
taxes
and
by
financial
benefits
on
the
foods
and
 produce,
produced
in
a
sustainable
manner
by
land‐bound
farmers.



Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


10

5)
Animalwelfareshouldreceiveacentralpositioninthelivestocksector.
The
government
must
 guarantee
animal
welfare
by
prohibiting
welfare‐unfriendly
practices.
A
clear
guarantee
for
the
 welfare
of
animals
should
be
laid
down
in
the
Dutch
constitution
(see
also
the
recommendations
from
 the
Dutch
Raad
voor
Dieraangelegenheden [Council
for
Animal
Concerns]60),
for
instance,
the
 guidelines
by
the
Brambell
commission
(1965)61.
Such
guidelines
should
form
the
basis
of
policy
and
 legal
framework
in
the
realm
of
animal
welfare.
Note
that
this
means,
among
other
things,
that
 animals
are
no
longer
kept
inside
all
year,
that
healthy
animals
are
not
‘cleared
away’
in
case
of
 threatening
disease
crises,
that
chicks
are
no
longer
shredded
alive,
calves
are
not
taken
away
from
 their
mothers
immediately
after
birth,
teeth
are
not
filed,
cows
are
no
longer
earmarked,
freeze‐ branded
or
dehorned,
un‐stunned
ritual
slaughtering
is
banned,
long‐distance
transportation
ends,
the
 breeding
of
cows
that
cannot
deliver
calves
through
natural
means
is
terminated,
and
the
use
of
 hormones
is
prohibited.

 6)
Theuseofantibioticsandhormonesinlivestockfarmingmustbebanned.
It
should
only
be
allowed
 after
specific,
clearly
defined
veterinary
indications
for
individual
animals
that
are
ill.
The
control
on
 usage
should
not
be
left
to
the
sector
itself,
but
to
the
Ministry
of
Public
Health.

 7)
Land‐boundagricultureandclosedcyclesintheproductionofanimalproteinsshouldbethestarting point.
The
government
can
encourage
this
by
actively
promoting
the
regional
production
of
protein
 crops
such
as
lupins
and
peas,
and
the
regional
utilisation
of
manure.
The
rearing,
fattening,
and
 slaughtering
of
farm
animals,
as
well
as
the
production
of
raw
materials
for
fodder
should
preferably
 occur
within
the
same
region,
so
that
the
high
environmental
and
climate
costs
caused
by
transporting
 fodder
and
live
animals
no
longer
apply.

 8)
Theestablishmentandexpansionoflarge‐scalefactoryfarmsshouldberestricted.Laws
and
 regulations
should
be
introduced
to
counter
further
harm
to
the
countryside.
A
limit
should
be
set
to
 the
number
of
animals
that
can
be
kept
per
hectare,
per
region,
or
across
the
country.

 9)
Farmersshouldgetachancetoadapt.
In
the
enforced
restructuring
we
propose,
it
is
clear
that
the
 sector
will
face
difficulties
in
the
transition
phase.
Supporting
measures
are
needed
in
this
period,
 during
which
the
government
should
help
farmers
who
get
into
financial
trouble,
by
facilitating
their
 switch
to
more
sustainable
production
methods
or
to
another
line
of
business.
We
consider
politicians
 and
decision
makers
(in
the
Netherlands
and
the
EU)
as
primarily
responsible
for
many
of
the
current
 problems.
Investments
in
a
total
reorganisation
should,
thus,
come
from
that
direction.
Given
the
high
 societal
costs
of
the
current
mode
of
operation,
this
investment
will
be
paid
back
in
due
course.
As
an
 aside,
the
generally
held
principle
that
companies
operate
only
under
a
“license
to
produce”
which
is
 granted
or
denied
by
the
community,
also
applies
to
the
agricultural
sector,
as
it
does
to
any
other
 business.
Obviously,
there
will
be
no
compensation
for
being
unable
to
continue
practices
that
have
 already
been
undesirable
or
illegal
for
many
years.

 10)
Thedevelopmentofnutritiousandtastyplant‐basedfoodsshouldbepromoted.The
government
 should
invest
more
in
research
into
the
efficient
production
of
plant‐based
products
that
can
replace
 animal
products,
and
invest
in
providing
information
about
products
that
help
consumers
switch
to
 more
vegetarian
diets.
An
attractive
alternative
naturally
leads
to
a
lower
meat
and
dairy
 consumption,
and
hence,
will
help
resolve
all
of
the
problems
we
have
noted,
while
also
benefiting
 consumers’
health.

 
 April
27,
2010

 
 60


http://www.rda.nl/pages/adviezen.aspx


61


http://www.welzijnswijzermelkvee.nl/Welzijnswijzer/Devijfvrijheden/tabid/61/Default.aspx


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


11

Aarts,
Prof.
dr.
Noelle

 Aerts,
Prof.
dr.
Rien
 Ankersmit,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Frank
 Arntz,
Prof.
dr.
Arnoud
 Baalen,
Prof.
dr.
Carla
van
 Baars,
Prof.
dr.

Jan
 Barendregt,
Prof.
dr.
Henk
 Bakker,
Prof.
dr.
Paul
 Beckers,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Theo
 Berendse,
Prof.
dr.
Frank
 Boer,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Frits
 Boersema,
Prof.
dr.
Jan


 Bögels,
Susan
 Bongers,
Prof.
dr.
Frans
 Boom,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Remko
 Bos,
Prof.
dr.
René
ten

 Brandt
Corstius,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Hugo
 Bressers,
Prof.
dr.
Hans
 Brug,
Prof.
dr.
Johannes
 Bruggen,
Prof.dr.ir.
Ariena
van
 Chavannes,
Prof.
mr.
Marc
 cl*teur,
Prof.dr.
Paul

 Dam,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Nicole
van
 Dietz,
Prof.
dr.
Ton
 Donk,
Prof.
dr.
Ellen
van
 Dorelijers,
Prof.
dr.
Theo
 Driessen,
Prof.
dr.
Peter
 Dijk,
Prof.
dr.
Eric
van
 Dyck,
em.
Prof
.
dr.
R.
van
 Egmond,
Prof.
ir.
Klaas
van
 Eijndhoven,
Prof.
dr.
Josee
van

 Frankenhuis,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Maarten
 Gerlagh,
Prof.
dr.
Reyer
 Grootjans,
Prof.
dr.
Ab
 Haan,
Prof.
dr.
Else
de
 Haring,
Prof.
dr.
Michel
 Heertje,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Arnold

 Hoek,
em.
Prof.dr.
Leo

 Horn,
oud‐Prof.
dr.
Sineke
ten
 Horst,
Prof.
dr.
Henriette
van
der
 Huibers,
Prof.
dr.
Marcus
 Jacobs,
Prof.
dr.
Bart
 Jetten,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Mike
 Jongh,
Prof.dr.
Ad
de
 Jochemsen,
Prof.
dr.
Henk
 Kindt,
Prof.
dr.
Merel
 Koedijk,
Prof.
dr.
Kees
 Kok,
Prof.dr.
Gerjo
 Komdeur,
Prof.
dr.
Jan
 Kooreman,
Prof.
dr.
Peter
 Korthals,
Prof.
dr.
Michiel
 Krol,
Prof.dr.
Maarten
 Lankveld,
Prof.
dr.
Jacques
van
 Lecq,
Prof.dr.
Fieke
van
der
 Leeuwis,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Cees
 Leroy,
Prof.
dr.
Pieter
 Lettinga,
Prof.
dr.
Gatze
 Maassen,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Ton


Wageningen,
UvA
 VU
 Groningen,
KNAW
 Maastricht
 Radboud
 Tilburg
 Radboud
 Radboud
 Tilburg
 Wageningen
 UvA
 VU
 UvA
 Wageningen
 Wageningen
 Radboud
 
 Twente
 VU
 Wageningen
 Groningen
 Leiden
 Radboud
 UvA,
Leiden
 Utrecht,
KNAW
 VU,
Leiden
 Utrecht
 Leiden
 
 Utrecht
 Erasmus
 
 Tilburg
 Groningen,
Radboud
 UvA
 UvA
 
 VU
 
 VU
 Maastricht
 Radboud
 Radboud
 UvA,
VU
 Wageningen
 UvA
 Tilburg
 Maastricht
 Groningen
 Tilburg
 Wageningen
 Wageningen
 Maastricht
 Erasmus

 Wageningen
 Radboud
 Wageningen
 Leiden,
VU


Communication
science
 System
ecology
 Intellectual
and
theoretical
history
 Clinical
psychology
and
psychopathology
 Parliamentary
history
of
the
Netherlands
 Gerontology
 Mathematics
and
informatics
 Philosophy
 Sustainable
development
 Environmental
management
and
plant
ecology
 Child
and
adolescent
psychiatry
 Environmental
science
 Developmental
psychopathology
 Tropical
forest
ecology
 Foodstuff
technology
 Philosophy
and
organisational
theory
 Mathematics,
linguistics
 Environmental
management
 Epidemiology
 Biological
farming
systems
 Journalism
 Encyclopaedia
of
jurisprudence
 Ecogenomics
 Social
geography
 Aquatic
ecology
 Forensic,
child
and
adolescent
psychiatry
 Environmental
management
 Economic,
social
psychology
 Psychiatry
 Food
technology
/Environment
 Sustainability
management
 Poultry
medical
science
 Environmental
economics
 Eco‐hydrology
 Child
and
adolescent
psychiatry
 Plant
biotechnology
 Economics
 French
literature
 Care
management
 General
Practice
medicine
 Clinical
psychology
 Computer
protection
 Ecological
microbiology
 Dentistry
 Christian
philosophy
 Experimental
clinical
psychology
 Financial
management
 Applied
psychology
 Evolutionary
ecology
 Health
economics
 Applied
philosophy
 Air
quality
and
atmospheric
chemistry
 Sexology
 Economics
 Communication
science
 Environment
and
management
 Environmental
technology
 Molecular
diabetology


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


12

Martens,

Prof.
dr.
Pim
 Moll,
Prof.
dr.
Henk
 Mols,
Prof.
dr.
Gerard
 Musschenga,
Prof.
dr.
Bert
 Olff,
Prof.
dr.
Han
 Oosterlaan,
Prof.
dr.
Jaap
 Pessers,
Prof.
dr.
Dorien
 Peters,
Prof.
dr.
Madelon
 Peters,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Paul
 Pieters,
Prof.
dr.
Rik

 Piersma,
Prof.
dr.
Theunis
 Ploeg,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Jan
Douwe
v/d

 Prast,
Prof.
dr.
Henriëtte
 Prins,
Prof.
dr.
Herbert
 Prins,
Prof.
dr.
Pier
 Reijnders,
Prof.
dr.
Lucas

 Roelofs,
Prof.
dr.
Jan
 Rotmans,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Jan
 Ruiter,
Prof.
dr.
Peter
de
 Schrijver,
Prof.
dr.
Peter
 Schuengel,
Prof.
dr.
Carlo
 Schuurman,
oud‐Prof.
dr.
ir.
Egbert
 Seidell,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Jaap
 Sent,
Prof.
dr.
Esther‐Mirjam

 Seters,
Prof.
dr.
Paul
van
 Smalhout,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Bob

 Smaling,
Prof.
dr.
Eric
 Smits,
Prof.
dr.
René
 Smits,
Prof.
dr.
Toine
 Spek,
Prof.
dr.
Bert
van
der

 Stapel,
Prof.
dr.
Diederik
 Stegeman,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Dick
 Straalen,
Prof.
dr.
Nico
van
 Struik,
Prof.dr.ir.
Paul
 Verhaar,
em.
Prof.
dr.
Boudewijn
 Vet,
Prof.
dr.
Louise
 Vet,
Prof.
dr.
ir.
Riekie
de
 Vonk,
Prof.
dr.
Roos

 Vries,
Prof.
dr.
Nanne
de
 Wassen,
Prof.
dr.
Martin
 Wigboldus,
Prof.
dr.
Daniel
 Wit,
Prof.
dr.
Theo
de
 Witte,
Prof.
dr.
Flip
 Wijnen,
Prof.
dr.
Frank
 Zeelenberg,
Prof.
dr.
Marcel
 Zeeuw,
Prof.
dr.
Aart
de


Maastricht
 Groningen
 Maastricht
 VU
 Groningen
 VU
 VU,
UvA
 Maastricht
 
 Tilburg
 Groningen,
NIOZ

 Wageningen
 Tilburg,
WRR
 Wageningen
 UvA
 OU,
UvA
 Radboud
 Erasmus
 Wageningen
 Utrecht
 VU
 
 VU
 Radboud
 Tilburg
 
 Twente
 UvA
 Radboud
 VU
 Tilburg
 Radboud
 VU
 Wageningen
 Eindhoven
 Wageningen,
KNAW
 VU
 Radboud
 Maastricht
 Utrecht
 Radboud
 Tilburg
 VU
 Utrecht
 Tilburg
 Tilburg


Sustainable
development
 Sustainable
production
and
consumption
 Criminal
law
and
procedure
 Philosophical
ethics
 Ecology
 Paediatric
neuropsychology
 Theory
of
law
 Health
psychology
 Teratology
and
developmental
toxicology
 Marketing
 Animal
ecology
 Rural
sociology
 Economics
 Ecology
 Child
and
adolescent
psychology
 Natural
environmental
science
 Aquatic

ecology
/
environmental
biology
 Transitions
to
Sustainability
 Environmental
sciences
 Celtic
languages
and
culture
 Ortho‐pedagogy
 Christian
philosophy
 Nutrition
and
health
 Economics
 Globalisation
and
sustainable
development
 Anesthesiology
 Soil
geography/
Sustainable
agriculture
 Law
of
economic
and
monetary
union
 Water
management
 Old
history
 Consumer
science
 Neurophysiology,
clinical
physics
 Animal
ecology
 Crop
physiology
 Theoretical
physics
 Evolutionary
ecology
 Clinimetrics
 Social
psychology
 Health
promotion
 Environmental
sciences
 Social
psychology
 Systematic
theology
and
philosophy
 Hydrology
and
ecology
 Psycho
linguistics
 Economic
psychology
 Environmental
economics


Plea
for
Sustainable
Livestock
Farming


13