Health Problems Found by Hog Farms

[Guest guest]

February 12, 2000

Chapel Hill, NC

 

People living near hog farms report more headaches, diarrhea and minor

respiratory problems, according to a study by researchers at the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

 

The survey also found that people who lived within two miles of an

industrial-style hog farm reported a reduced quality of life. Fewer residents

enjoyed outdoor activities when compared to those who did not live near hog

operations.

 

“I think that the survey provides enough evidence that we should consider the

problem serious,” said Steven Wing, the UNC-Chapel Hill professor of

epidemiology who led the study released Wednesday. “This tells us we need to

look at this further.”

 

Preliminary results of the study, funded by the National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences and the North Carolina Department of Health and

Human Services, were first reported last year. Final results will appear in

March in the scientific journal “Environmental Health Perspectives.”

 

The researchers interviewed 155 people in three counties. One group lived within

two miles of a 6,000-head hog operation; another lived near two adjacent cattle

farms; and the third group, a control, lived in a farming area without large

livestock operations.

 

Residents were asked how many times they experienced a range of health problems,

and about quality of life issues.

 

Researchers found the greatest differences in quality of life, but also found a

higher incidence of some health problems reported by those who lived near the

hog farm.

 

Hog industry officials said the study is pseudo-science.

 

“It's just junk science. I do know that you can skew these so-called studies to

get the results you want,” said Walter Cherry, director of the N.C. Pork

Council. “From a tax standpoint, that money was wasted if your trying to prove

something. Now if your trying to pursue an agenda, maybe it wasn't wasted.”

 

Cherry said the survey questions, coupled with the fact that the hog farm in the

study had been the target of organized protests from residents, made it clear

the kind of responses that researchers wanted. A valid study would have relied

on medical examinations for hard evidence to back up the conclusions, he said.

 

Wing said some of the respondents may have known the survey concerned the

effects of hog farms, but said no mention was made of hogs, livestock or odors.

 

He agreed that some people may have reported more symptoms because of their

negative feelings about hog farms.

 

But researchers found no difference between some types of health symptoms --

such as sore muscles and joints, blurred vision, or hearing problems -- among

those who lived near hog farms and among those who did not.

 

That finding, Wing said, suggests the greater incidence of health problems

reported by people who lived near hog farms -- sore throats, coughing, burning

eyes, headache and diarrhea -- were not imagined.

 

Researchers did not have enough money to do physical exams and trace long-term

health effects, he said.

 

“This study has a number of limitations which we discuss pretty openly,” Wing

said. “We need more research. But I am aware of people who live around these

operations who feel there is enough evidence here already.”

 

See also: http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/def/aw_gen.html

and

http://www.epa.gov:80/ostwater/guide/feedlots/envimpct.pdf (Environmental

Impacts of Animal Feeding Operations (PDF) - U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency - Office of Water Standards and Applied Sciences Division - Dec 31, 1998)

--

 

 

_____________

Free email services provided by http://www.goodkarmamail.com

 

 

powered by OutBlaze