7. Evidence base

Pollution

The NPPF has several policies to protect the public and the environment from pollution (paragraphs 187 and 198).

In England, agriculture and rural land management are responsible for the most water pollution incidents and are the main issue preventing lakes and rivers achieving ‘good’ status.

Up to 33,450 tonnes of manure is produced every day by chickens and pigs in factory farms, with much of this produced in sensitive river catchments. Every day, factory farmed chickens and pigs produce 3,649 tonnes of waste in the River Severn, 2,540 tonnes in the Ouse (Yorkshire), 2,974 tonnes in the Great Ouse, 2,262 tonnes in the Norfolk River Group and 2,456 tonnes in the Trent. 

Key pollutants from industrial animal farming include:

Hydrogen Sulfide

Hydrogen sulfide is emitted from manure; it causes a rotten egg odour and contributes to acid rain and regional haze.

Ammonia pollution

Agriculture accounts for 87% of the UK’s ammonia emissions. The key sources are storage and spreading of manures, slurries and fertilisers, chicken ranging areas, intensive poultry units, livestock housing, and spreading of digestate. There are high background levels of ammonia in the UK in the air and in waterways. High ammonia in the air can cause damage to human cardiovascular and respiratory systems, particularly when combined with other pollutants such as diesel fumes (particulate matter called PM2.5).

Ammonia pollution can lead to soil acidification, direct toxic damage to leaves, and can alter the susceptibility of plants to frost, drought and pathogens. Airbourne ammonia pollution has a significant impact on ancient woodland. The Woodland Trust reported in 2021 that 70- 80% of broadleaved woodland habitat in the UK exceeds the critical levels of ammonia. Impacts on SSSIs, ancient woodlands, local wildlife sites and irreplaceable habitats must be considered in planning and are material considerations. 

Nitrogen pollution

Within England and Wales, livestock production is estimated to be responsible for 50-60% of nitrate pollution of waterways. 55% of the land in England is at risk of nitrate pollution. Synthetic fertilisers used to grow chicken feed contain high levels of nitrogen. Chickens excrete this nitrogen in manure, which may be spread on local land as fertiliser. Unabsorbed nitrogen then leaches from the soil into groundwater, which can contaminate sources of drinking water and damage aquatic and marine ecosystems. About 96% of nitrogen-sensitive habitats in England receive more nitrogen than they can cope with.

Volatile organic compounds

Airborne emissions of VOCs harm both human and animal health and welfare. Their key sources include manure and the livestock themselves.

Phosphate pollution

Within England and Wales, livestock production is estimated to be responsible for 20-30% of phosphorus pollution of waterways. Phosphate – which is present in animal manure and fertilisers - accounts for more water bodies failing to achieve good ecological status than any other water quality pressure. Chicken manure has particularly high concentrations of phosphates. The increased level of phosphate pollution in our water has clear ties to industrialised forms of animal agriculture. 

Economic and sustainable development

The NPPF has several policies to support the rural economy, including the development and diversification of agricultural businesses and the infrastructure needed to support sustainable agriculture (paragraphs 88-89). The overarching aim of the NPPF is to achieve sustainable development, which has economic, social and environmental objectives.

The intensive livestock production industry is highly consolidated.  Most of Britain’s poultry and pig meat is produced by a small number of multinational companies including Faccenda, Moy Park, Cargill, 2 Sisters and Banham Poultry. The companies control the entire production process, from feed mills to meat processing.

Based on our assessment of factory farm planning applications in the UK, new intensive livestock developments create 1-2 new jobs on average, which are often low paid. Sustain found that the farmers themselves receive a pittance from mainstream intensive livestock supply chains, with supermarkets, processors and supply companies hoovering up the profits.

Nutrient pollution is preventing the construction of new homes in 74 local planning authority areas in England. In these ‘nutrient neutrality’ zones, Natural England has issued guidance aiming to protect threatened habitats from further damage. The guidance states that no further building works should take place if the development would add any further pollution, unless mitigation measures are put in place. It is estimated that up to 100,000 homes have been affected by these restrictions, potentially jeopardising the Government's target of building 1.5 million homes. It is estimated that failure to address this issue could result in an £18 billion economic loss over the next six years.

Intensive livestock production underpins an unequal and unhealthy global food system. Modern intensive agriculture is a fossil fuel-based, energy-intensive industry that is aligned with biotech, trade and energy interests, versus farmer and consumers priorities.  It is operated by a highly integrated, consolidated supply chain with a few multinational companies generating profits outside the region.

Chicken production companies subcontract commercial growing to farmers, who invest in constructing sheds. Commercial growers typically receive all inputs (including one day old chicks as well as composite feed) from the poultry company. Shed conditions are controlled electronically and require minimum input from the farmer. One worker can manage 100,000 birds, inspecting the sheds daily to remove dead birds and cull unhealthy ones. Once the birds have reached the target weight, removal and transport to the processing plant is carried out by the multinational poultry company.

As such, these operations don’t positively contribute to local economic development. In fact, they cause harm to economic prospects:

• The expansion of pig farming in Lancashire meant the council were forced to cancel plans to build homes.
• A number of studies in the USA have found that the presence of industrialised animal agriculture leads to the reduced enjoyment of property and deterioration of the surrounding landscape, which are reflected in declining home values.

Intensive livestock production does not contribute favourably to a sustainable food supply – i.e., food security. Feeding edible grain to animals is a highly inefficient use of food and farmland. The reliance on cheap inputs such as feed mean intensive livestock production is highly vulnerable to any supply chain disruptions and costs can quickly skyrocket. The UK egg shortage in 2022 is one recent example of this. Intensively produced meat appears cheap for the consumer, but the cost is high for communities, wildlife and rivers. The Sustainable Food Trust reported for every £1 UK consumers spend on food, there are additional hidden costs of 97p which include environmental decline, subsidies and diet-related disease.

Biodiversity loss

The NPPF includes policies to protect and enhance biodiversity (paragraph 192-195).

Almost half of Britain’s natural biodiversity has disappeared. The conversion of natural ecosystems for crop production or pasture has been the principal cause of habitat loss, in turn reducing biodiversity.

A ‘business-as-usual' approach to livestock production and consumption threatens the habitats of more than 17,000 species globally. Industrial meat production leads to biodiversity loss in four ways:

1. Land requirement, including for feed: 40% of the UK’s prime cropland is used to grow food for livestock instead of people. Additionally, we import huge quantities of feed from abroad. Research from WWF linked meat in European diets with widespread deforestation and conversion of habitats in South America.
2. Pollution: Industrial livestock production generates waste and contaminates air and water, which reduces the quality of the environment for ecosystems.
3. Risks from disease: The latest outbreak of avian flu has killed rare wild birds and infected mammals in the UK.
4. Climate change: Industrial livestock contributes GHG emissions, which is altering ecosystems and negatively impacts biodiversity

(Note: The amount of soy meal needed for the consumption of different types of livestock products in the EU is highest for poultry (967 grams/kg) and pork (648 grams/kg) compared to other meat and livestock products. So, a simple replacement of one emissions-intensive meat for another will increase our dependency on imported protein crops and do little to reduce emissions.)

Intensive livestock is an incredibly inefficient use of land. Growing high-protein pulses, nuts, grains and peas generates more than triple the calories per hectare than the most high-yield, intensive animal products. The greatest benefits for biodiversity come from producing less and better meat (and mirroring this change in consumption). Producing smaller amounts of meat, alongside more fruit and vegetables, cereals and fish, through agroecological systems has a demonstrable benefit for wildlife and biodiversity, as well as ‘ecosystem services’ like carbon sequestration, clean water, clean air and flood protection, without loss of yield.

Indirectly, high-GHG foods drive biodiversity loss through contributing to climate change. Climate change affects biodiversity by changing habitat suitability. This causes sensitive species to die out, or prompts them to move to new locations as other species move in. As natural ecosystems lose and gain species in response to climate change, the resilience of whole ecosystems is affected.

Climate change

Paragraph 161 of the NPPF sets out that planning should support the transition to net zero by 2050. The Food system (including farming, manufacturing and transport) is responsible for a third of UK GHG emissions. Even if all other sources of GHGs stopped completely, emissions from the food system would use up our entire budget for 1.5 degrees. Changing our diets and reducing the amount of meat and dairy we produce and consume is essential. According to the Committee on Climate Change, a 20-50% reduction in all meat and dairy consumption by 2050 is required to meet our statutory climate targets. For this to happen, livestock numbers must fall and high-carbon foods need to be replaced with healthier, more sustainable options.

In the UK, we eat twice the amount of meat and dairy than the global average, and twice as much as is considered optimal for our health.  The intensification of livestock production creates negative outcomes for food security, animal welfare, water pollution, biodiversity, and antibiotic use.

The Committee on Climate Change advise a switch to agroecological farming and sourcing protein from a diverse range of sustainable crops. A switch to agroecological farming in the UK could reduce emissions by 38 per cent and offset the remaining 60 per cent of emissions through afforestation.

Public health

Promoting healthy communities falls within the scope of the NPPF, which contains policies to both promote health and prevent ill-health (paragraph 96).

Industrial livestock production poses a number of risks to health, including:

• Infectious and foodborne disease: four of the top five causes of foodborne illnesses are linked to animal agriculture. Foodborne illnesses of animal origin are not unique to intensive livestock, but close crowding of animals facilitates immunosuppression and the spread of some non-commensal pathogens, such as Salmonella and E. coli 0157
• Antimicrobial resistance: Resistant bacteria have been found in water downstream from industrial livestock production units.
• Zoonotic disease transmission: Both poultry and swine carry influenza viruses. Mutated strains of these viruses could cause a pandemic amongst humans. The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic was of swine origin, and the 1918 “Spanish Flu,” which may have killed as many as 50 million people, is thought to be of animal origin.
• Poor working conditions: Workers in industrial livestock operations suffer respiratory disease and irritation, hearing loss and musculoskeletal problems.
• Health and wellbeing impacts for local communities: Living near an intensive livestock production facility comes with increased risk of respiratory diseases such as asthma, zoonotic diseases, mood disorders including anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances attributable to malodorous compounds.
• Impacts on rivers and tourism: Open water swimming has surged in popularity in recent years and offers physical and mental health benefits. Unfortunately, there is only one inland waterway considered safe to swim in England. Intensive agriculture is the most common source of water pollution in the UK.
• Personal health risks of high-meat consumption: Diets rich in animal products contribute significantly to our growing burden of chronic disease and preventable death. Diets containing few or no animal products are associated with positive outcomes for cardiovascular disease; obesity; type-2 diabetes; prostate, breast and colon cancer; and all-cause mortality as compared to high meat diets. Vegan and vegetarian diets may also be protective against diabetes.