Observations have solid scientific sources
By KEN MIDKIFF
Published Friday, October 17, 2008
(http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Oct/20081017Comm003.asp)

Answering the mail:

• In response to my column on concentrated animal feeding operations, a fellow who operates a CAFO - he didn’t say who owns the animals - said the Pew Commission reports were routinely ignored because Pew did no research of its own. That is true, but it does obtain copies of other sound-science research reports, and the report on the harmful effects of CAFOs is drawn from those. It is also interesting that the CAFO fellow did not comment on the many other studies that found CAFOs were harmful to human health. As to the pork industry sponsoring many studies, to my knowledge those mostly deal with informing CAFO operators on how to reduce air and water contamination - a tacit admission that CAFOs do pollute and are harmful to human health.
  
• One of my columns written on Columbia’s drinking water spurred a suggestion that I move out of town. That writer must have been having a ’60s flashback: "Love it or leave it." My reply now is the same as those long-ago protesters’: "My country, right or wrong. When wrong, we’ll help make it right." I have no intention of moving anywhere. This is my home. But the quality of drinking water is questionable. The city of Columbia is taking steps to make it pure and clean. Whether this would have been done without pressure is doubtful. I’ll keep up the pressure.
  
• Then there was the writer who suggested I consider myself to be always right. He didn’t say it, but I surmised he thought I was wrong most of the time. Unfortunately for that person, I peruse reports and studies, and my columns are almost always based on those.
  
  For example, in my columns on Columbia’s water quality not meeting safe standards, I relied on reports from the U.S. Geological Survey, a printout of a water-quality analysis from the Columbia drinking water system, an engineering firm’s report and a purchase order issued by the city of Columbia. My columns come from such information and do not spring from a vacuum. Now, if that person wishes to argue with the USGS, John O’Connor and the city of Columbia, have at it.
  
• A synopsis I did of economic issues pertaining to agribusiness’ intrusion into rural matters brought howls of outrage from CAFO operators, who apparently believe the hype spun by Cargill, Smithfield, Tysons and the advocates for the industrial method of raising animals for meat, milk and eggs. But many economic studies (and pronouncements and actions by counties’ tax assessors) reveal that rural areas benefit hardly at all from factory farms, but the liabilities pile up. I’ll repeat: Emotions and passion are very poor substitutes for facts.