Environmental Justice, Swine Production and Farm Loss in North Carolina

Edwards, Bob; Ladd, Anthony E.

doi:10.1080/027321700405054

Cited by 37 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Edwards has also reported that large hog operations forced small farmers out of business 31 . As the industry consolidated, the primary slaughterhouse in North Carolina refused to accept hogs in lots of fewer than 1,000 32 .…”

Section: Environmental Injustice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the industry consolidated, the primary slaughterhouse in North Carolina refused to accept hogs in lots of fewer than 1,000 32 . With the exception of the slaughterhouse, the industry does not create many working-class jobs and sometimes creates major rifts in the social fabric of communities between proponents and opponents of local CAFOs 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 …”

Section: Environmental Injustice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, large corporations (“integrators”) contract with individual farmers to raise animals and set precise standards for what the animals eat, their housing conditions, and the antibiotics and hormones they receive. Finally, there’s been a consolidation of control and ownership that, as mentioned, has forced small farmers out of business and altered local economies and communities 31 , 32 …”

Section: A Brief History Of Swinementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

CAFOs and Environmental Justice: The Case of North Carolina

Nicole¹

2013

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Environmental Injustice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Environmental Injustice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Brief History Of Swinementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

CAFOs and Environmental Justice: The Case of North Carolina

Nicole¹

2013

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…State laws and policies during the 1980s and 1990s encouraged the infrastructure build-out by providing tax breaks and exemptions from certain environmental rules for industrial livestock operations [111]. However, negative impacts on nearby waters and communities [110,[112][113][114] led the state government to place a moratorium on new industrial swine facilities in 1997 [115,116]. Although the number of swine operations has not grown in the years since the moratorium, industrial poultry facilities have expanded largely unchecked due to similarly favorable policies.…”

Section: Native Nations and Water Governance In North Carolinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

Emanuel

Wilkins

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous peoples worldwide face barriers to participation in water governance, which includes planning and permitting of infrastructure that may affect water in their territories. In the United States, the extent to which Indigenous voices are heard—let alone incorporated into decision-making—depends heavily on whether or not Native nations are recognized by the federal government. In the southeastern United States, non-federally recognized Indigenous peoples continue to occupy their homelands along rivers, floodplains, and wetlands. These peoples, and the Tribal governments that represent them, rarely enter environmental decision-making spaces as sovereign nations and experts in their own right. Nevertheless, plans to construct the Atlantic Coast Pipeline prompted non-federally recognized Tribes to demand treatment as Tribal nations during permitting. Actions by the Tribes, which are recognized by the state of North Carolina, expose barriers to participation in environmental governance faced by Indigenous peoples throughout the United States, and particularly daunting challenges faced by state-recognized Tribes. After reviewing the legal and political landscapes that Native nations in the United States must navigate, we present a case study focused on Atlantic Coast Pipeline planning and permitting. We deliberately center Native voices and perspectives, often overlooked in non-Indigenous narratives, to emphasize Indigenous actions and illuminate participatory barriers. Although the Atlantic Coast Pipeline was cancelled in 2020, the case study reveals four enduring barriers to Tribal participation: adherence to minimum standards, power asymmetries, procedural narrowing, and “color-blind” planning. We conclude by highlighting opportunities for federal and state governments, developers, and Indigenous peoples to breach these barriers.

show abstract

“…The environmental justice paradigm appears to be a suitable lens for evaluating the impact of pig farming intensification on a rural community in Northern Ireland because it illuminates not only the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens but also the extent of individual and community recognition and participation (Schlosberg 2007) in relation to farming intensification. Previous research that applied the lens of environmental justice to a case of farming intensification analyzed the impacts of corporate pig meat production on farm loss among minority communities (Edwards and Ladd 2000) and linked the environmental justice paradigm with grassroots protest against corporate agriculture (Ladd and Edwards 2002). The innovative contribution of this article is to consider public participation in decision-making regarding this phenomenon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farming Intensification and Environmental Justice in Northern Ireland

Gladkova

2020

Crit Crim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Going for Growth, an industry-led strategy to expand the agri-food sector, was adopted by the Northern Irish government in 2013 in order to encourage farming intensification in Northern Ireland. This approach, however, threatens an already fragile natural environment and has already had detrimental consequences for human health and well-being. This article employs an environmental justice perspective to scrutinize farming intensification in a community affected by this phenomenon. Based on findings from semi-structured interviews with local residents, the article describes their exposure to environmental risks as a result of farming intensification. The uneven distribution of environmental burdens is also coupled with limited opportunities for the local residents to engage in environmental decision-making and to be recognized as active agents of change. The article concludes that farming intensification in Northern Ireland is marked by procedural environmental injustice and should be addressed by downscaling levels of production and reforming decisionmaking processes.

show abstract

Environmental Justice, Swine Production and Farm Loss in North Carolina

Cited by 37 publications

References 10 publications

CAFOs and Environmental Justice: The Case of North Carolina

CAFOs and Environmental Justice: The Case of North Carolina

Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

Farming Intensification and Environmental Justice in Northern Ireland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About