Livestock farming bad for public health, isn't it?

There is much to be said about the possible negative consequences of livestock farming for local residents. The perception is often that public health is at risk, but the conclusions for this are not watertight.    

On 22 October, Minister Schouten sent the sub-report 'Veehouderij Gezondheidsen, III (VGO)' to the House of Representatives. This report reports on additional research published in 2016 into the relationship between pneumonia and goat and poultry farms. A large-scale study was then carried out into the relationship between livestock farming and the health of local residents in East Brabant and North Limburg.

The new report confirms the relationship between pneumonia and goat farms, but the relationship with poultry has disappeared and Minister Carola Schouten of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) easily skips over this in the accompanying letter to parliament. 

Panic in 2016
In the years 2009 to 2013, a 'significant association' was seen between the occurrence of pneumonia and poultry farming. At the time, the research presented a considerable task for poultry farming. Administrators were urgently summoned to the ministry in The Hague and former state secretaries Sharon Dijksma and Martijn van Dam came up with a reduction requirement for particulate matter of 50% for existing stables and 70% for new buildings.

The Dutch press was full of news that livestock farming is bad for public health. However, if you read the report carefully, you could see some shortcomings. Hennie de Haan, chairman of the Dutch Trade Union for Poultry Farmers (NVP), also saw these limitations at the time. But, she points out, if we say this as the subject of the research, it is seen as a sign of weakness. Nevertheless, the NVP reported to the ministry that they had doubts about the datasets, the chosen method and the conclusions.

Trend break
The study in 2016 had several parts, including a medical examination among 2.494 people. This sub-study did not reveal a significant relationship between pneumonia and poultry farms. Other sub-studies did show a (not very strong) relationship. In the current study, the relationship for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 has disappeared.

For broilers, a link would still have been found in 2014. Both the minister and the researchers are talking about a 'possible trend break'. This can literally be called a trend break: researchers saw a trend and it is no longer there. However, the lack of the association between pneumonia and poultry does not indicate a trend break. After all, nothing has changed in the poultry or poultry houses in the period in question. The 'trend break' indicates that there was never a trend.

The researchers themselves indicate that the association varied widely and was not very clear. It seems as if they want to cover themselves by creating a 'trend break', as if something from the outside has broken the link between poultry and pneumonia.

Limitations
The VGO study is the largest in scope and fairly unique. But it also has its limitations. The research question, stated project leader Kitty Maassen at the time, is emphatically looking for relationships between livestock farms and the health of local residents. The research goal is emphatically not to find possible other explanations for found relationships. The follow-up studies also seem to focus mainly on confirming the associations found and still not on possible other explanations.

The current study states that it is not known what the smoking behavior of the respondents is. This cannot be deduced from the patient data. However, smokers have significantly more lung complaints than non-smokers. A question that came up regularly at the information meetings: 'Have you taken the influence of wood burning into account?' 

The answer was: 'no, we are investigating connections, we are not investigating the possible other explanations for those connections.' All this does not detract from the value of this study, but it does detract from the value one can attach to the conclusions. The new findings on pneumonia and poultry farming are proof of this.

Generic Measures
Schouten indicates in her letter to Parliament that the new research is no reason to deviate from the existing path: particulate matter is harmful to public health and we will continue with generic measures. That, in short, is her message. But the reduction requirement of 50% in existing barns and 70% for new barns is quite demanding and is not even feasible with techniques that are currently on the so-called RAV list (Ammonia and Livestock Farming Regulations).

De Haan (NVP) indicates that the new research is not a reason to stop focusing on particulate matter reduction, but that it does remove the urgency. 'There is now more time to develop better techniques that are feasible and affordable, we must also take that time.' De Haan is enthusiastic about the progress within the Livestock Farming Practice Center for Emission Reduction.

In the Gelderse Vallei, hard work is being done on new ways of reducing particulate matter. De Haan has never committed to the 50-70% requirement and wants to have it off the table. The union is committed to a good barn climate for animals, poultry farmers and staff. An improvement of this stable climate also has a positive effect on the living environment. 'It is then a win-win situation', says de Haan.

More research
Follow-up studies into livestock farming and the health of local residents are still ongoing. For example, an investigation is taking place in Gelderland and Overijssel in which the NVP is also involved. De Haan has the feeling that this will provide a better picture. 'The situation in Brabant is so tense, you can see it in how, for example, a Brabant Municipal Health Service (GGD) is doing it.'

Strikingly enough, there is no more research on the positive associations that have been found: earlier people already saw less asthma and allergies on farms. Now there is less pneumonia in 'other poultry', which includes duck and turkey farms. That seems strange to say the least. 

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.