Environmental Groups – Who are they and how do they effect the industry? Richard S. Cornfeld Thompson Coburn One Firstar Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 552-6023 I. Introduction A. In the past several years environmental groups have been actively crusading against the livestock industry. B. Their efforts have included lobbying, public relations, political campaigns, litigation and health studies. II. Identification of Environmental Organizations A. The “Encyclopedia of Associations” lists more than 1,500 organizations under the categories Conservation, Ecology, Environment, Environmental Education, Environmental Health, Environmental Law, Environmental Quality and Natural Resources. B. More than 1000 separate organizations belong to the Clean Water Network, which endorses strong clean water safeguards. C. Environmental organizations are major forces in our society. In 1999 Americans gave $3.52 billion to environmental organizations. D. The hog industry is a major target of environmental groups. E. One internet directory of environmental organizations lists 610 groups under “farm” or “agriculture.” Prominent organizations include: 1. The Sierra Club. a) 700,000 members b) Staff of about 300 c) Budget of $56.5 million d) 460 affiliated state and local groups. 2. Natural Resources Defense Council. a) 500,000 members b) Staff of nearly 200. c) Budget of $34 million 3. Environmental Defense Fund. a) 300,000 members b) Staff of nearly 216 c) Budget of $32 million. 4. Center for Rural Affairs. a) Staff of 24 b) Budget of $1.6 million F. By contrast, the National Pork Board has 85,000 members and a budget of about $50 million. III. Activities of Major Organizations A. Sierra Club 1. Largest environmental group in the country. a) 700,000 members b) Its claimed membership has grown by 100,000 since President Bush was elected. 2. It has an annual budget of about $56.5 million, of which it spends 42% on fundraising. 3. The Sierra Club’s effort against CAFO’s is one of its “four national priority campaigns.” 4. It wants to stop the construction of new CAFO’s, phase out open-air lagoons and land application with spray guns, and increase government regulations. 5. Several times a year it issues reports critical of CAFO’s. In 2001, they include: a) A report on the use of antibiotics by CAFO’s that claims that it threatens the effectiveness of antibiotics in humans. b) A report claiming that large agricultural companies that sell to the federal food lunch program violate federal environmental and labor laws. - 2 - 6. It has supported the Water Keepers lawsuits. 7. Its desire is to eliminate large farms altogether and return to the days of the small family farmer. 8. Thus, it is safe to say that the Sierra Club will oppose whatever the large livestock industry does. B. Natural Resources Defense Council 1. Along with the Clean Water Network (an alliance of 1000 organizations), it published “Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health” in July 2001. 2. That report urged the phasing out of waste lagoons and the end to sprayfields. 3. The report acknowledges the assistance of several people involved in litigation against the pork industry. a) Environmental litigation in Missouri against Premium Standard Farms and Contigroup Companies, Inc. (1) Scott Dye, Agriculture Coordinator of the Sierra Club (2) Rolf Christen of the Citizens’ Legal Action Network b) Multi-state litigation against Smithfield (1) Nicollette Hahn, attorney with Water Keepers Alliance (2) Rick Dove of North Carolina Riverkeepers. C. Environmental Defense Fund 1. Sponsors Hog Watch, a web site that provides information for activists against the hog industry. IV. Litigation A. Water Keepers Lawsuits 1. In December 2000, a coalition of four activist groups, under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced the formation of a legal “dream team” of 15 plaintiffs’ firms to bring a nationwide series of lawsuits against the corporate hog industry. 2. Sponsoring organizations - 3 - a) Water Keeper Alliance b) Sierra Club c) Animal Welfare Institute d) National Farmers’ Union (300,000 members) 3. Law firms: 15 plaintiffs’ law firms with experience in such fields as asbestos and tobacco litigation. The lawyers include: a) Richard Middleton, former president of the American Trial Lawyers’ Association (the leading organization of the plaintiffs’ bar). b) Jan Schlichtmann, the subject of the book and movie “A Civil Action” about his efforts to pursue toxic-tort litigation over alleged groundwater pollution in Woburn, Massachusetts. 4. So far, the coalition has filed lawsuits only against Smithfield Foods and its subsidiaries: a) Two state common law actions in North Carolina b) Two federal environmental lawsuits in North Carolina. c) A Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) lawsuit in federal court in Tampa, Florida. 5. In April 2001, a state court judge dismissed the two state-court cases for lack of standing and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Those cases are now on appeal. 6. The Water Keepers have threatened to bring cases against other companies but so far they have not done so. B. Other lawsuits. 1. Hanes v. Continental Grain. a) 108 neighbors of Continental’s Northwest Missouri hog farms sued in St. Louis, claiming nuisance over odor, flies, water contamination, and health complaints. They also sought punitive damages. b) Verdict: 56 plaintiffs received nothing, 52 plaintiffs received $100,000, no one received punitive damages. - 4 - c) This was widely regarded as a major victory for Continental. The plaintiffs had sought $100,000,000, and their attorneys had invested $5 to $7 million in the case. d) These lawyers also brought the CLEAN litigation mentioned above. A year after the Hanes verdict, when it appeared that their prospects in these cases were no better, they withdrew from all “pig” litigation. The chief lawyer for CLEAN joined a small firm, where he has struggled ever since without adequate financial backing. 2. Buckeye Egg Farm case shows that the threat of a large verdict is still real.. a) 21 neighbors of an Ohio egg farm received a total of $19.2 million from a Licking County jury. b) The plaintiffs sued over odor, flies and water pollution. V. Nonlitigation Activities A. Health studies: There are three principal studies that are commonly cited, but each of these has significant flaws. 1. Susan Schiffman et al., “The Effect of Environmental Odors Emanating From Commercial Swine Operations on the Mood of Nearby Residents,” Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 37. No. 4, 369-375 (1995). a) This study reported on a comparison of responses to a mood survey of two groups of people, one consisting of 44 people living near an intensive North Carolina swine operation and one consisting of 44 matched controls. b) The subjects near the hog facility reported significantly more tension, more depressioin, more anger, less vigor, more fatigue, and more confusion than control subjects. c) Flaws: (1) The basis for the determination of mood changes was simply the answers the subjects gave to a subjective questionnaire called the Profile of Mood States. There was no objective confirmation of any of the findings. (2) The article does not indicate where specifically the study was conducted. However, North Carolina is an area of activism against swine confinement operations and the subjects were likely able to infer the purpose of the study. - 5 - (a) All subjects were given several copies of the questionnaire to take home. (b) The residents near the swine facility were asked to complete one questionnaire on four days when the hog odor could be smelled. (c) Controls were asked to complete one questionnaire per day for two days. (d) Because of the differences in the circumstances in which they completed the questionnaires, there is a potential for bias in this study. The individuals near the swine facility were provided enough information to infer the purpose of the study (since they were told to complete the questionnaire on a day they smelled odor). Thus, they were not blinded to the study’s purpose. 2. Kendall Thu, Kelley Donham et al, “A Control Study of the Physical and Mental Health of Residents Living Near a Large-Scale Swine Operation,” Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 3(1):13-26 (1997), p. 1-11, www.health/mentalhealththu.htm. a) This study reported on a comparison between 18 Iowans who live near a 4,000-sow swine facility with 18 controls who do not live near livestock. (1) Each individual was given a questionnaire regarding health symptoms. (2) The residents near the hog facility reported more respiratory and other physical symptoms than the controls. (3) There was no difference in psychological symptoms. Thus, the article failed to confirm Schiffman’s findings. b) Flaws (1) There were very few people involved in the study (18 in each group). (2) There was no objective confirmation of anyone’s symptoms because the authors neither conducted objective patient examinations nor reviewed medical records of any of the subjects. - 6 - (3) There was no random selection of subjects. In fact, the authors indicated that they selected subjects in an area where “certain neighbors had expressed environmental and health concerns.” (4) There was no attempt to measure exposure. (5) The authors in effect conceded that their study could not establish causation. This was a hypothesis-generating study. The authors state: “Further study is needed to test the hypothesis that neighbors of large-scale swine operations experience higher rates of physical symptoms ….” The authors have not reported a study testing that hypothesis. 3. Steve Wing and Susanne Wolf, “Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of Life Among Eastern North Carolina Residents,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 108, No. 3, (March 2000), p.