The environmental hazard in pig-farming centers around waste disposal—management of nitrogen- and phosphorous-rich pig manure. Farmers could use pig manure to fertilize the soil for crops, however, the sheer quantity of output exceeds any agricultural need for fertilizer. The result are pig lagoons, which create air and water pollution.

In the US, a number of important pig-producing counties have manure nitrogen production levels that exceed the assimilative capacity of all the county’s crop and pasture land. Impacts on the environment from pig manure include the degradation of aquatic ecosystems, and air pollution from odours and ammonia emissions, as well as impacts on soil quality and biodiversity. (The OECD Observer, October 2003)

Environment groups have attempted to address this issue in the United States. The Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center at North Carolina State University led a five-year study on hog-waste treatment that proposed five economically-viable alternatives to minimize the environmental impact. The cost of the eco-friendly pig-farming may result in a $12 million decline in the industry, which means that farmers may be reluctant to adopt new practices, in spite of angry neighbors and health concerns. (Steve Hartsoe, Associated Press, 15 March 2006)

There’s always the Enviropig, a creation of Canadian genetic scientists and so called because its reduced phosphoric output with respect to its conventional cousins. Lee Silver, Princeton Professor of Molecular Biology and Public Affairs, presents this pig as an argument for transgenic animals. An enzyme in the Enviropig’s saliva extracts phosphorous, thus reducing 75-percent of the phosphoric content in its manure. The premise of Silver’s article, “Why GM Is Good For Us” is that this pig, if raised widely, may mitigate the level of air pollution. According to Silver, the only thing standing in the way of ecological progress is a group of simple- and closed-minded Luddites:

Standing in opposition to these advances are advocates of an organic food philosophy that holds to the simplistic notion that "natural" is good and "synthetic" is bad. Genetic modification is unacceptable to organic farmers merely because it is performed in a laboratory. Says Charles Margulis, a spokesman for Greenpeace USA, "We think the Enviropig is a Frankenpig in disguise."(Lee Silver, Newsweek, 14 March 2006)

To say that opponents reject genetic modification simply because it comes from a laboratory is a gross oversimplification of the GM debate. Even if we ignore the unpredictable health and environmental impacts of transgenic breeding, the Enviropig (or Frankenpig, depending on your opinion) does not seem to address the nitrogen production that contributes to pollution. There is also no evidence that Enviropig would be more cost-feasible than modification of agricultural or trade practices--that is, trade regulations (in the form of reduction of support payments for pork) or the five alternatives suggested by the Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center. Given the uncertainties of the science, adopting a GM solution may be swapping one environmental hazard for another.