Farm Bureau opposes case against poultry industry

By Jim Stafford

Published: December 11, 2007

The Oklahoma Farm Bureau's request last week to submit a legal brief in the state's pollution lawsuit against the poultry industry is a defense of all Oklahoma livestock producers, the organization's president said.

The ag group has mounted a spirited defense of the poultry industry because the lawsuit threatens all agriculture, said Mike Spradling, Farm Bureau president. If poultry litter is declared a hazardous waste, then all farm animal waste is at risk for similar declarations.

"It's a very important issue because at this point none of those poultry people has been found out of compliance with what the regulations are,” Spradling said. "We will represent them based on the fact that they are ag producers, and we feel they have a right to produce.

"If they are not out of compliance or breaking laws we don't see why they are under this kind of scrutiny.”

However, in a lawsuit filed in 2005 by Attorney General Drew Edmondson against 14 integrated poultry companies, the state accuses them of polluting watersheds and violating both federal and state rules.

The complaint claims some of the country's largest providers of chicken, turkey and eggs violated the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, state and federal nuisance laws, and trespassing and Oklahoma Environmental Quality and Agriculture rules.

Named in the lawsuit were Tyson Foods Inc., Tyson Poultry Inc., Tyson Chicken Inc., Cobb Vantress Inc., Aviagen Inc., Cal-Maine Foods Inc., Cal-Maine Farms Inc., Cargill Inc., Cargill Turkey Production LLC, George's Inc., George's Farms Inc., Peterson Farms Inc., Simmons Foods Inc. and Willow Brook Foods Inc.

Although most of the companies are in Arkansas, more than 500 poultry houses are in eastern Oklahoma. State farmers grow millions of birds each year for the poultry companies.

"We think that our people can meet the requirements,” Spradling said.

"We think they are now. There are a lot of things that affect the phosphorus in the streams other than poultry litter.”

When contacted Monday about the Farm Bureau's request to intervene in the pollution case, Edmondson had a one-sentence reaction.

"The cause of pollution will be ably represented without the Farm Bureau's help,” Edmondson said.

The bottom line, Spradling said, is that eliminating the poultry industry would not solve the pollution problems with the watershed.

"There are a lot of commercial entities around these water streams that contribute to the amount of phosphorus,” he said.

"There are a lot of recreation, golf courses, housing that has septic tanks or whatever that contribute to the amount of phosphorus in the streams, as well.”

Comments