Author: Jillian Parry Fry

Publisher:

Published: 2015

Total Pages: 231

ISBN-13:

Watersheds around the world are plagued by pollution caused by human activity, and agriculture is a main pollution source. Industrial farm animal production (IFAP) compounds the problem of agriculture pollution because it involves clustering large populations of animals in small areas. IFAP often involves a nutrient imbalance due to the geographic decoupling of animals and grains grown for feed, resulting in water pollution when manure is spread on cropland too small to absorb the available nutrients. This food production method is associated with numerous public health problems caused by air and water pollution. The Chesapeake Bay watershed, in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, has received extraordinary attention and funding for decades aimed at reducing pollution and restoring the bay. Despite this, significant improvement in water quality and sea life has not occurred. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put forth a new regulatory effort to hold states accountable while allowing them to decide how to reduce pollution in their jurisdictions. A qualitative case study was conducted to examine the policy system surrounding animal agriculture regulations in the watershed. Data collection methods included document and media review, participant observation, and stakeholder interviews. The study found that public health is largely left out of newspaper coverage of the restoration effort and stakeholders' work to influence policy. The advocacy coalition framework was applied to the policy subsystem in Maryland. Economic and political characteristics of the agriculture industry coalition in the state were identified that prevent significant policy change, even in a setting with a vast body of scientific evidence supporting the need for more stringent agriculture regulations. Maryland's approach to agriculture pollution, including current regulations and the plan put forth for meeting the EPA's pollution limits, relies on policies fraught with limitations. These include significant loopholes, lax enforcement, a weak set of requirements that do not adequately address pollution, no effort to address the underlying nutrient imbalance, funding sustainability issues, and potential to increase pollution. These limitations are, in part, due to the absence of public health considerations in the policy subsystem and the agriculture industry's immense political power. Many other regions in the U.S. and around the world are impacted by the ecologic and public health effects caused by IFAP and do not have a large body of scientific evidence to inform the policy making process. The unique situation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed illustrates the limitations of scientific evidence when the focus of stakeholders is mostly on ecologic impacts and the polluting industry has significant political power. Research aimed at studying the nature and extent of public health issues in Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay watershed caused by IFAP could alter the policy debate by shifting the focus away from ecologic concerns to human health impacts. Educating the public, stakeholders, and policy makers on the specific health problems suffered by local communities due to air and water pollution from 1FAP could result in policy change that takes more into account than just water pollution from nutrient runoff, but political obstacles to such policy change are significant.